An IMGW News Report
𝐈𝐧 𝐚𝐧 𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐰𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐧 𝐌𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐚 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐚𝐬𝐤 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩-𝐛𝐲-𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐦𝐞. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐟𝐚𝐫-𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐄𝐔 𝐦𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬. 𝐀𝐭 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐚 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: 𝐖𝐡𝐨 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐧 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧—𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐦𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐫 𝐁𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐬?
Dr Christian H. Kaelin, chairman of Henley & Partners and a leading figure in the investment migration sector, is clear in his view. “There is no such thing as a genuine link requirement in EU law,” he asserts. The Commission, he argues, is overreaching, seeking to encroach on national sovereignty without a legal basis.
The discussion took place in an interview with Juliette Foster for The European Magazine, a platform known for its in-depth analysis of EU affairs.
Malta’s programme offers naturalisation to investors who contribute to the country’s economy. Critics, including the Commission, contend that this weakens the concept of EU citizenship, granting access to individuals who may have little meaningful connection to the granting nation. But Dr. Kaelin dismisses such concerns. “Citizenship matters are the exclusive competence of member states, as enshrined in the EU treaties. The Commission has no legal grounds to interfere.”
“On one hand, Malta is creating a few hundred highly qualified EU citizens, each undergoing rigorous due diligence. On the other hand, the EU is allowing hundreds of thousands of illegal and often undocumented migrants to enter”
This raises a broader issue: the balance between national sovereignty and European integration. Some see Malta as a test case for the Commission’s ambitions to centralise control over citizenship policy. “It is not surprising that the EU is targeting its smallest member state first,” Dr Kaelin notes, suggesting that Brussels is using Malta as a convenient starting point to extend its influence.
Beyond the legal arguments, there is the question of economic utility. Investment migration, he argues, has proven beneficial to Malta and other participating nations. “Countries leverage their citizenship as an asset, attracting highly qualified individuals who contribute to their economies,” he says. While some of these investors may not reside permanently in Malta, they often engage with other EU economies, a reality that ought to be seen as a benefit for the EU rather than a problem.
“With Brexit, the EU lost one of its strongest anchors for the rule of law.”
Dr Kaelin also contrasts Malta’s approach with broader EU migration policies. “On one hand, Malta is creating a few hundred highly qualified EU citizens, each undergoing rigorous due diligence. On the other hand, the EU is allowing hundreds of thousands of illegal and often undocumented migrants to enter,” he observes. He emphasises that Malta’s applicants meet stringent financial independence requirements, which align with the EU’s own criteria for an ideal citizen in terms of rights of establishment in the union. “Yet, rather than embracing this as a positive contribution, the EU is challenging Malta’s sovereign right to determine its own citizens,” he adds. The contrast, he argues, is stark.
The debate is also political. “Some in the European Parliament and certain political circles simply do not like the idea of citizenship being granted to highly qualified people through investment,” Dr. Kaelin concedes. Yet, he points out that the EU itself admits large numbers of less-qualified migrants to citizenship through other routes.
“This is not just about Malta. It is about the rule of law in the EU”
Brexit looms in the background of this debate. Dr Kaelin suggests that the UK’s departure from the EU has shifted the power dynamics within the bloc. “With Brexit, the EU lost one of its strongest anchors for the rule of law. The UK was also a counterweight to overreach from Brussels. Now, we see attempts to extend authority into areas that have traditionally been sovereign matters.” The case against Malta, he argues, is part of a broader, worrying trend of Brussels trying to extend more control over areas of national sovereignty.
As the case will soon be decided, a key question lingers: What precedent will it set? If the Commission were even partly to succeed, although unlikely, it could embolden Brussels to continue its course to try to exert greater control over national policies traditionally seen as sovereign matters. “This is not just about Malta. It is about the rule of law in the EU,” Dr Kaelin warns. The European Court of Justice will have the final say and will hopefully follow the opinion of the court’s Advocate-General, who made it clear that the EU Commission has no case. It would be a significant win not only for Malta but also for the rule of law in Europe.
