Legal analysis of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) decision on the Maltese Golden Passport program
On April 29, 2025 the ECJ issued a judgement declaring Malta’s Golden Passport program in violation of European Union law. The decision in Case C-181/23 (European Commission v Republic of Malta) marked a significant development in EU citizenship law. The ECJ ruling de-facto established new limits on how EU Member States can grant citizenship. Below we will provide some legal thoughts on the court decision. We will also analyse the implication that the court decision may have on all EU investment citizenship and residence programs.
Worth noting is the statement of the General Advocate of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The statement is in stark contrast with the current decision of the ECJ, which has been branded as “politically motivated” by many.
What was the legal dispute all about?
The EU Commission brought Malta to court concerning its “Maltese Citizenship by Naturalisation for Exceptional Services by Direct Investment” program. The Maltese scheme is best known as the “golden passport” program. It is worth noting that the Maltese government cleverly tried to disguise the programme as naturalisation for special merits. Special merits citizenship programs are legitimate naturalisation paths that exist in many countries around the world. Bulgaria is also known to have a well working citizenship for special merits program. In contrast to the special merits citizenship programs however, the Maltese golden passports were granted against financial contribution, rather than “real merits”.
Introduced in 2014 and revised in 2020, the program permitted individuals to acquire Maltese citizenship through a substantial financial investments. The options for “financial contributions” were basically “donations” from 600 000 to 750 000 EUR to the Maltese government, purchase of properties for 700 000 EUR and other smaller donations to local entities.
The Golden Passport candidates had to also maintain legal residence in Malta for 36 months. However, against additional donation of 150 000 EUR, the required residence length could be shortened to 12 months only. We believe that exactly this option may have been the turning point for the ECJ to issue its negative ruling on the Maltese citizenship program (see p. 109 of the ECJ decision).
The core legal issue that ECJ had to resolve
The ECJ assessed whether Malta’s investor citizenship scheme aligns with EU law. The primary question was whether citizenship can be granted solely in exchange for financial investment and in case that there is no genuine link to the granting Member State (Malta).
EU citizenship can’t be treated as a commodity
The Court emphasised that EU citizenship, conferred automatically with Member State citizenship, should represent a real and effective connection between the applicant and the EU member state. Malta’s scheme allowed individuals to gain citizenship merely by making a financial investment, without requiring integration or residence.
Violation of sincere cooperation
Under Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), Member States must act in mutual trust and solidarity. The ECJ ruled that Malta violated this principle by unilaterally granting EU citizenship in return for financial contribution. Malta has thereby obligated other EU member states to recognise individuals who may not meet typical citizenship standards.
Undermining the concept of citizenship in EU Law
While citizenship laws fall within national competence, the ECJ clarified that Member States must respect EU obligations when EU citizenship is granted. Malta’s scheme bypassed meaningful checks such as integration, residence, or cultural ties, weakening the substance of EU citizenship.
No genuine link requirement
Traditional citizenship requirements often include long-term residence, familial ties, or language and civic knowledge. Malta’s program lacked these, relying instead on financial investment and a short visit. The ECJ found this insufficient to justify granting citizenship (Maltese), that is also an EU citizenship.
Conclusion and Consequences
The ECJ concluded that Malta’s investor citizenship scheme violates EU law. The ruling requires Malta to abolish the program and affirms that EU citizenship cannot be commodified. It also sends a clear signal to other EU member states considering similar schemes.
What will be the effects for the Bulgarian Golden Visa program?
The decision of the ECJ does not relate to the Bulgarian Golden Visa program. The Bulgarian permanent residency does indeed lead to full Bulgarian citizenship, but only after 5 years. This period is much longer than the Maltese 12 to 36 months requirement. We believe that if the Maltese program had no option to shorten the required residence period from 36 to 12 months, the ECJ’s decision would have been different. With all that said, we believe that the ECJ decision on the Malta case will not have any impact on the Bulgarian Golden Visa program. This doesn’t mean that it is guaranteed that the Bulgarian program will stay forever. EU golden passports are now a thing of the past. Golden Visa programs will stay for now. But nobody knows for how long.