A Special Report by IMGW News
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has delivered a landmark ruling against Malta’s Citizenship by Investment (CBI) programme, a decision that has ignited debates on national sovereignty, EU legal standards, and the future of investment migration in Europe and possibly worldwide. The judgment, delivered on 29 April 2025, concluded that Malta’s programme violated EU law, specifically by granting citizenship without establishing a “genuine link” to the country.
A Shift in EU Citizenship Law
Bruno L’ecuyer, Chief Executive of the Investment Migration Council (IMC), the worldwide body for investment migration, framed the ruling as a shift in the legal framework governing EU citizenship. “Completely overruling the opinion of the Advocate General, the Court of Justice of the European Union has found that Malta’s Citizenship by Investment programme is contrary to EU law. In doing so, the Court signalled a radical departure from its earlier EU citizenship case law, which focused on the protection of individual rights. Instead, it issued a strong moralising call for the existence of ‘genuine links’ between Member States and the Union, now a requirement under EU law,” L’ecuyer explained.
“The sector should take note of and pivot their business models to adapt to this change – take heed of the ruling, respect the court’s verdict, and adopt the business models and offerings accordingly”
– Bruno L’ecuyer
He continued, “While denying any intention to assume the national competences on citizenship retained by the Member States, the Court has, in effect, prohibited one specific mode of acquiring EU citizenship. Although seemingly a blow to the investment migration sector, the decision introduces a new legal framework within EU law that may be constructively employed by future designers of EU investment migration programmes. The sector should take note of and pivot their business models to adapt to this change – take heed of the ruling, respect the court’s verdict, and adopt the business models and offerings accordingly.”
L’ecuyer also pointed out that, while the ruling challenges the status quo, it could ultimately create opportunities. “IM pathways come and go as they have always done,” he said. “More broadly, the Court’s ground-breaking judgment presents a new conception of EU citizenship, with significant negative implications for the internal market.”
National Sovereignty or EU Integration?
Niklas J.R.M. Schmidt, a leading law and tax advisor in Austria, voiced strong opposition to the ruling, which he deemed a “clear misjudgement.” Schmidt argued that the ECJ’s decision reflected a broader trend of judicial activism in the EU, where the Court expands Union competencies, sometimes in disregard of treaties. He called it a “power grab” by the European Commission, which, in his view, seeks to usurp national powers over citizenship.
Patricia Casaburi, CEO of Global Citizen Solutions in Portugal, shared similar concerns, framing the ECJ’s decision as a troubling encroachment on national sovereignty. She argued that the ruling oversimplified Malta’s CBI programme, which she noted was carefully structured to ensure substantial economic contributions to Malta’s public services, charitable donations, and a mandatory residency period. “The ECJ’s decision opens the door to a concerning form of judicial federalism,” she said, adding that this could undermine the constitutional balance between member states and the Union.
“The road ahead for investment migration will likely focus on developing residency-based models that align more closely with EU legal and ethical standards”
A Political Shift in EU Citizenship Law
When contacted by IMGW News, Dr. Christian H. Kälin, Chairman of the investment migration firm Henley & Partners, pointed to a key political aspect of the ECJ’s ruling: “What’s particularly interesting about this ruling is that the court completely disregarded the Advocate General’s opinion, which effectively rebutted the EU Commission’s position on the issue of the genuine link. This is a radical departure from the Advocate General’s views, and notably, the court didn’t address the EU’s point at all. Instead, the ruling comes across as more of a political statement, rejecting the notion of a transactional price tag within the EU. This decision, rather than being purely legal, seems to reflect a broader political stance, which I believe is the most intriguing aspect of this case. It is clearly a political decision.”
Government Response and National Unity
The Maltese government’s response to the ECJ ruling has been one of respect for the Court’s decision, while emphasising that citizenship remains a matter of national competence. Malta’s Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Ian Borg, stated that the government is reviewing the judgment’s implications, ensuring that its legal framework aligns with the EU’s principles. “Rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union are binding on Member States, and Malta will, as always, respect the outcome,” Dr Borg affirmed. He also reassured that the government would continue to protect the integrity of the country’s investment migration programmes, which have contributed significantly to Malta’s economic growth and development.
“Rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union are binding on Member States, and Malta will, as always, respect the outcome”
– Dr Ian Borg
The Maltese government further defended the legacy of its CBI programme, citing the €1.4 billion in revenue generated since 2015. These funds have supported various public initiatives, including social housing projects, healthcare investments, and restoration of national heritage. The government also called for national unity in the face of the ruling, urging citizens and political leaders to focus on the future, rather than dwelling on the past.
A Broader Debate on EU Citizenship and Migration
This ruling represents a pivotal moment for Malta’s citizenship programme and for investment migration schemes more broadly. The decision raises crucial questions about the future of national sovereignty in the EU and the balance between national and Union competencies. While Malta navigates the aftermath, the rest of Europe watches closely. The road ahead for investment migration will likely focus on developing residency-based models that align more closely with EU legal and ethical standards.
𝑳𝒐𝒐𝒌𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒎𝒐𝒓𝒆 𝑰𝑴𝑮𝑾 𝑵𝒆𝒘𝒔 𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒍𝒆𝒔 𝒓𝒆𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑬𝑼 𝒗. 𝑴𝒂𝒍𝒕𝒂 𝒄𝒂𝒔𝒆? 𝑾𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒅 𝒄𝒉𝒆𝒄𝒌𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒐𝒖𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒇𝒐𝒍𝒍𝒐𝒘𝒊𝒏𝒈:
- Sovereignty at Stake: Leading immigration and citizenship expert Dr. Niklas Schmidt on the EU’s Challenge to Malta’s Citizenship by Investment Programme
- Malta Citizenship Case Recommended for Dismissal, Final Verdict by 2025 – Advocate General’s Opinion Update
- The Sovereignty Question: Malta’s CBI Programme at a Crossroads
- Exclusive Interview with Malta’s Deputy PM: From Diplomacy to Investment Migration in the EU’s Smallest State
- Private: Is the EU Turning its Back on Citizenship by Investment? This Monday May Shed Some Light on the Future Directions
- Updated: EC vs. Malta Citizenship Case – AG Opinion Due October 4, 2024
- Malta’s Court Battle Echoes Across the Caribbean
