Changes to the nationality law: what they may mean for those who have already chosen Portugal

Author: Lidiane de Carvalho

Update – [April 9, 2026] After this text was first published, the full wording of the new amendment became publicly available. It confirms that there is a specific transitional clause for nationality applications that are already pending when the law enters into force. These procedures should be decided under the previous Nationality Law.

The core concern of this article, however, remains: there is still no broader transitional framework for people who have not yet applied but are already fulfilling the requirements (years of residence, family ties, etc.) and who organised their lives in good faith on the basis of the current rules.

This text is written above all with those in mind who come from elsewhere and have chosen Portugal as home: people who work, study, raise children here, and who see nationality as the natural step to stop living “in a kind of provisional state”.

On 1 April 2026, Parliament approved a new amendment to the Portuguese Nationality Law.

There are two points that it is important to clarify from the outset:

• this amendment is not yet in force – it still awaits the President of the Republic’s decision and publication in the Official Gazette (Diário da República);

• the text approved, as it is publicly known today, includes a transitional rule for applications that are already pending, but does not establish a general transitional framework for those who have not yet applied but are already fulfilling the requirements (for example, counting years of residence in order to apply for nationality later on).

When the law changes halfway through your story

Foreign nationals organise their lives – their personal, family and professional decisions – based on legitimate expectations created by the rules in force.

They made plans: they turned down opportunities in other countries, moved with their families, learned a new language, integrated into the culture, invested in the host country, relying on the real possibility that, once the conditions were met, they would become Portuguese citizens and, with that, citizens of the European Union.

When the law changes, the question that arises is profoundly human: Is it fair to change the rules of the game for those who are already playing?

This is where two important legal ideas come in, which we can put in simple terms:

• “rules of transition” (transitional norms);

• and the protection of confidence, that is, the State’s duty not to betray, without good reason, the expectations it itself created.

What “rules of transition” mean in practice

Rules of transition are the provisions Parliament drafts to say:

• what happens to those who already have pending applications;

• how years of residence or other conditions that have already been accumulating are to be counted;

• whether the new law applies only to those who start the process afterwards, or also to those who are already “inside” the system.

In the Nationality Law, this has been the case from the outset: the 1981 law already contained its own title on final and transitional provisions, designed to deal with situations existing before it entered into force. The most recent major organic reforms, in particular those of 2006, 2018 and 2024, once again adopted rules on pending cases or previous situations, maintaining and updating this transitional block in the consolidated text of the law.

The same is true of the Nationality Regulation: the regulation adopted in 2006 already included a title on transitional provisions to deal with births, adoptions and other earlier situations, and the 2017 and 2022 revisions again adopted express transitional rules, including for pending procedures and for the transition between systems and procedures.

In other words, in matters of nationality, it is established practice for the legislator to be concerned with those who are already halfway along the path.

It is precisely this that, in the amendment approved on 1 April 2026, does not clearly appear: as far as is publicly known, there is only a specific rule for pending procedures, but no general transitional regime that also covers those who have not yet applied but are already fulfilling the requirements.

Protection of confidence: the State cannot simply pull the rug

The Portuguese Constitution states that Portugal is a democratic state based on the rule of law. This is not just a solemn formula: it means, among other things, that the State must act in a predictable, loyal and non‑arbitrary manner.

The Constitutional Court has given concrete shape to this idea through the principle of protection of confidence:

• people may organise their lives on the basis of the law;

• Parliament may change the rules, but it cannot do so in just any manner;

• when a change is very abrupt and seriously affects life plans built on well‑founded expectations created by the legal order itself, that change may be unconstitutional.

The Office of the Prosecutor‑General of the Republic, in opinions on the application of new laws to pre‑existing situations, stresses the same idea: a new law normally applies for the future, but it cannot be used to bear down oppressively on those who relied in good faith on a legal framework that was favourable to them.

Translating this into the reality of those who have migrated:

• if someone came to Portugal, stayed, worked, paid taxes, learned the language because the law stated that, after a certain period, they could apply for nationality;

• if that person has already submitted an application, fulfilling everything that the law required;

then there is a legitimate expectation that the State will not change the rules in such a way as to close the door when they are already about to cross the threshold.

The Nationality Law carries special weight

The Constitutional Court itself has stated that the Nationality Law is not just another “ordinary” statute: because it determines who belongs to the political community, it has a materially constitutional weight.

This means that:

• Parliament has the power to define the rules;

• but that power must observe certain limits, because it alters the fundamental position of persons within the State and within the European Union;

• and therefore, changes to this law are examined with greater care by the courts, particularly when they may affect concrete individuals who were already complying with the previous rules.

The European Union’s perspective: confidence, good administration and European citizenship

It is important to be clear from the outset: at present there is no European rule and no judgment of the Court of Justice that directly determines how Member States must deal with pending nationality applications when the law changes. The way in which each country organises its nationality rules remains, in principle, a national competence.

Even so, European Union law offers two guiding lines that help frame this discussion.

On the one hand, over many decisions in other areas, the Court of Justice has developed the principles of legitimate expectations and the prohibition of disproportionate retroactive changes. Put simply, the Court has said that:

• individuals can only invoke legitimate expectations when the European institutions (or the Member States, when applying EU law) have given them clear and consistent indications that they could rely on certain rules;

• even so, the legislator cannot change those rules “backwards in time” in a surprising way or with serious detriment, without a strong and proportionate justification.

On the other hand, in cases concerning nationality and European Union citizenship, the Court of Justice has emphasised that:

• each State continues to decide who its nationals are;

• but today that decision also determines who is a citizen of the Union;

• therefore, when a person may lose the nationality of a Member State and, with it, Union citizenship, automatic and blind solutions do not suffice: it is mandatory to respect proportionality and to carry out an individual assessment of the person’s concrete situation.

These cases do not yet deal with pending nationality applications that are affected by a change of law halfway through the process. But they show an important underlying idea: States’ choices in matters of nationality cannot ignore, in an absolute way, the real impact on people’s lives and on their relationship with the European project.

For those who are awaiting a decision on Portuguese nationality, or for those who have organised their lives counting on the possibility of applying for it, this means two things:

• there is no “automatic European right” to have the application decided under the old law;

• but the European principles of legitimate expectations, good administration and proportionality reinforce the requirement that legislative changes should not be arbitrary, nor retroactive in a disguised and disproportionate way, especially when they affect life paths already under way and the potential route towards European citizenship.

Even so, the “first line of defence” for those in this limbo is not Brussels, but the Portuguese Constitution itself and the Constitutional Court’s case‑law on the rule of law and the protection of confidence. EU law operates here as a second circle of protection: it does not solve the problem on its own, but it strengthens the argument that it is not acceptable to change nationality rules in a way that leaves behind those who relied, in good faith, on the rules written by the State itself.

And what about those who have already applied for nationality? And those who are almost meeting the time requirement?

This is perhaps the question that today worries many foreign nationals living in Portugal the most.

In our reading, and from the point of view of a state governed by the rule of law:

• whoever has already submitted an application should see their case decided on the basis of the rules that were in force at the time of submission, unless the new law is more favourable;

• whoever is fulfilling requirements on a continuous basis (years of residence, for example) should not, without good justification and without an adequate transitional period, see that “path” devalued from one day to the next.

This position is consistent with what the Constitution, the Constitutional Court and the Office of the Prosecutor‑General of the Republic have stated regarding the protection of confidence: the State may change course, but it should not simply “pull the rug out” from under those who relied in good faith on its rules.

In the field of nationality, the legislator has already shown that it recognises this requirement: in 2017 and 2022, when it amended the Nationality Regulation, it created transitional provisions precisely to protect those who already had pending applications or were in ongoing situations.

This is why it is cause for concern that, in the amendment approved on 1 April 2026, we do not yet see a general rule that clearly states something like: “those who have already submitted an application or are already fulfilling requirements under the old regime will not be harmed by the change”.

From a strictly technical standpoint, this means that the protection of those who are already in the system will largely depend on:

• how the Administration (institutes, registries, consulates) interprets and applies the new law;

• and, in case of conflict, how the courts, particularly the Constitutional Court, will assess these situations in light of the protection of confidence and the special value of the Nationality Law.

The position we take here, as lawyers, is clear: in a state governed by the rule of law, the State must respect the confidence of those who have already started their nationality process under certain rules, deciding those applications on the basis of that framework, save where it is to apply more favourable solutions.

Why this matters (deeply) for those who have chosen Portugal as their place of life

In the end, this is not just a conversation about laws, decrees and court decisions.

It is a conversation about:

• people who left their country of origin, crossed oceans or borders and chose Portugal;

• families who have raised children here, who pay taxes here, who build community here;

• young people who study, work and dream here of a future in which they are no longer “foreigners”, but simply belong in Portugal.

When a change to the Nationality Law is made without clear transitional rules, there is a real risk of breaking that trust: of telling, in practice, those who trusted Portugal that, after all, the rules have changed halfway along the way.

From a country that wishes to see itself as fair, open and reliable, we expect the opposite: that it honours the expectations it has created, that it treats people with loyalty, that it does not use the law to turn its back on those who are already integrated and contributing.

While the amendment approved on 1 April 2026 has not yet been promulgated or published, there is still room to ask for clarification and to call for a transitional regime that protects those who are already on the move.

If this topic affects you directly – if you have a pending application, if you are counting years of residence, if you are considering applying for nationality – it is important to:

• follow the publication of the future law in the Official Gazette;

• understand whether there will be any transitional rule;

• and, in case of doubt, seek legal advice before making decisions.

Because, ultimately, talking about nationality is talking about something very simple: the right to belong. And that right should not be treated as if people’s lives were an on/off switch that the legislator can flip.

By Lidiane de Carvalho