Luxembourg, 26 April 2025 – IMGW Newsroom
The investment migration community may be on the cusp of a landmark development. After months of anticipation, indications are emerging that the European Court of Justice could be preparing to deliver its ruling in the European Commission’s case against Malta’s Citizenship by Investment Programme. Although timing remains uncertain, informed observers suggest that the verdict could arrive imminently, possibly within days.
“a pro-Commission ruling would set an extremely dangerous precedent. If the EU can intervene in citizenship matters without explicit treaty competency, other core sovereign powers like taxation could be next. This could lead to a gradual erosion of member state sovereignty.”
– Dr Niklas Schmidt
While no official announcement has yet been made, and caution remains warranted, the legal community has been closely monitoring developments following the October 2024 opinion of Advocate General Collins. The Advocate General advised that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) should dismiss the European Commission’s case against Malta, reaffirming that the grant of nationality remains the sovereign prerogative of Member States.
Malta’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Dr Ian Borg, underlined the significance of the Court’s eventual ruling in an exclusive interview with IMGW News Editor-in-Chief Ray de Bono earlier this year. Speaking to IMGW in January 2025, Dr Borg emphasised: “Rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union are binding on Member States, and Member States must align any of their current or future frameworks with the relevant rulings.”
Read the full interview here.
If the Advocate General’s recommendation is upheld, it would mark a significant victory for Malta — and could have profound implications for other nations defending their authority over citizenship policies.
“Malta is creating a few hundred highly qualified EU citizens, each undergoing rigorous due diligence, while the EU is allowing hundreds of thousands of illegal and often undocumented migrants to enter.”
– Dr Christian H. Kaelin
Leading voices in the investment migration field have weighed in on the broader stakes of the case.
Dr Christian H. Kaelin, Chairman of Henley & Partners, asserted: “There is no such thing as a genuine link requirement in EU law.” He warned that the Commission’s attempt to intervene “is not just about Malta — it is about the rule of law in the EU,” and called out the apparent inconsistency, noting: “Malta is creating a few hundred highly qualified EU citizens, each undergoing rigorous due diligence, while the EU is allowing hundreds of thousands of illegal and often undocumented migrants to enter.”
Professor Joseph H. H. Weiler, a leading scholar of European Union law, currently holding the Jean Monnet Chair at New York University School of Law and a former President of the European University Institute, has questioned whether it is Malta or the European Commission that risks undermining European values. Writing in Verfassungsblog, Professor Weiler highlighted the ongoing tension between EU integration and the sovereign rights of member states, particularly smaller countries that view citizenship-by-investment programmes as vital to their economic stability (as previously reported by IMGW News on 17 June 2024).
Ryan Darmanin, COO of Latitude Malta, criticised the contrasting standards applied by the European Commission, stating that “over a million people were naturalised across Europe in 2023 — often through processes with minimal vetting — while CBI applicants, who represent less than 1% of new citizens, undergo the most stringent due diligence processes.” He urged the EU to “embrace investment migration as a legitimate tool for growth.”
Offering a broader perspective, Patricia Casaburi, CEO of Global Citizen Solutions (GCS), underlined Malta’s continued appeal: “The idea of having an alternative option is becoming increasingly common, regardless of birthplace. People recognise the value of international mobility and stability.”
She added that Malta’s pro-business environment, strategic location, and stable governance continue to attract individuals seeking more secure futures — a trend likely to accelerate depending on the outcome of the case.
In an IMGW News interview, Dr Niklas Schmidt, a leading immigration and citizenship expert based in Austria, cautioned against a ruling in favour of the Commission, warning that “the European Commission’s infringement case against Malta represents an overreach into member state sovereignty.” He further observed that “a pro-Commission ruling would set an extremely dangerous precedent. If the EU can intervene in citizenship matters without explicit treaty competency, other core sovereign powers like taxation could be next. This could lead to a gradual erosion of member state sovereignty.”
As IMGW News has previously reported, the stakes in this case extend far beyond Malta’s borders. A ruling upholding Malta’s position could reinforce national sovereignty within the EU, whereas a ruling for the Commission could signal a shift toward greater centralisation and stricter control over the definition and granting of citizenship.
For now, the question remains: Will the CJEU confirm Malta’s sovereign right to determine its citizens? Will we see a renewed recognition of the principle of conferral within the EU? Or is a new era of centralised oversight about to begin?
It appears that we may soon find out.
