In April 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that Malta’s “Golden Visa” program, which grants citizenship in exchange for investment, violates EU law and the spirit of European citizenship. This ruling constitutes the clearest judgment to date regarding investment-based citizenship and residency programs, which have long been the subject of debate across Europe. These programs offer foreign investors rapid access to citizenship or residency rights in exchange for financial contributions. As a result, citizenship is increasingly perceived not as a bond of belonging, but as a commodity that can be bought and sold.
Such systems create a “grey zone” suspended between market logic driven by economic interests and fundamental European values such as the rule of law, equality, and democratic participation. This analysis aims to examine the relationship between Golden Visa practices and the concept of European citizenship, in light of the CJEU’s ruling on Malta.
Investment Citizenship: Definition, Practices, and Criticism
Citizenship by Investment (CBI) and Residency by Investment (RBI) programs grant citizenship or long-term residency to foreign investors in return for a specified economic contribution. These programs have proliferated since the 2000s, particularly among certain EU member states seeking to address budget deficits, boost real estate markets, or attract direct foreign investment. Countries like Malta, Bulgaria, Cyprus, and Austria offer direct citizenship, while Portugal, Greece, and Spain typically offer residence rights in exchange for property investment.[1]
These programs have sparked ethical and legal controversies at the EU level. The European Commission and the Council of Europe’s anti-corruption body GRECO have both reported that such schemes pose significant risks in terms of money laundering, organized crime, and security.[2] Additionally, the commodification of citizenship undermines fundamental European values such as equality, transparency, and the rule of law by turning EU citizenship into a marketable good.[3]
The CJEU’s Ruling on Malta
On April 29, 2025, the CJEU issued its judgment in the case brought by the European Commission against Malta. The court ruled that Malta’s Golden Visa program, which granted “unconditional” citizenship based solely on investment, is incompatible with EU law. The ruling explicitly emphasized that granting citizenship solely on the basis of economic contribution erodes the meaning of EU citizenship and reduces the notion of civic belonging to a tradable economic asset.[4]
The Court highlighted the principles of loyalty and solidarity, as well as the shared nature of rights associated with EU citizenship. According to Articles 20–25 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), citizenship generates consequences not only at the national level but also across the EU. Therefore, a member state’s citizenship policy has implications for the entire Union.[5] This marks a precedent-setting moment, as it is the first time the CJEU has imposed a direct legal limit on a member state’s sovereign power to grant citizenship. Malta is expected to terminate its program immediately, while the decision is likely to exert indirect pressure on countries such as Portugal and Greece that still operate similar schemes. It may also accelerate the development of binding legal norms and efforts toward harmonizing citizenship policies across the EU.[6]
Economic and Political Implications of Golden Visa Programs
Golden Visa and Golden Passport programs owe much of their appeal to the freedom of movement within the EU. Individuals who obtain citizenship or residency from an EU member state gain the ability to travel, settle, work, and invest across the 27-nation Schengen Area. For wealthy individuals, this effectively transforms citizenship into a form of “geopolitical insurance.”.[7] However, the programs are not limited to economic benefits—they also raise serious concerns related to money laundering, tax evasion, corruption, and organized crime. The European Commission has repeatedly emphasized that investment-based citizenship programs can be exploited by actors operating outside regulatory frameworks.[8] On an economic level, these programs have had a notable impact on luxury real estate markets. In countries like Portugal and Greece, they have contributed to soaring property prices, making affordable housing increasingly inaccessible to local residents. [9] Politically, the legitimacy of the programs is questionable. Citizenship should represent civic identity and political inclusion, yet when treated as an investment asset, it undermines principles of equality and participation.
The Tension Between EU Citizenship and Golden Visa Programs
U citizenship also derives meaning from dimensions such as political belonging, legal protection, and the right to representation. European citizenship is a status that complements the citizenship of member states and, under Article 20 of the TFEU, provides individuals with fundamental rights such as freedom of movement, residence, employment, and the right to vote in local elections.[10] Therefore, citizenship is a multilayered identity that includes democratic representation and participation. Golden Visa and Passport programs undermine this meaning by turning citizenship into a “commodity” acquired through market logic. This situation clearly contradicts the principle of equality.
While individuals with sufficient economic means can easily access citizenship, migrant workers and refugees are often forced to wait for years without gaining access even to basic rights.[11] At the root of the problem lies the debate over whether the authority to grant citizenship remains within the sovereign domain of member states or should be limited by common EU norms. Citizenship law is generally considered to fall within the national sovereignty of member states. However, the CJEU’s Malta decision constitutes the first serious step toward intervening in this sovereignty. The fact that countries like Portugal and Greece continue to implement Golden Visa programs shows that the EU’s political will is fragmented and unequal.[12]
Conclusion
The CJEU’s ruling on Malta is a historic decision that defines the legal boundaries of citizenship-for-investment practices and adds another layer to the pursuit of normative coherence at the Union level. This decision clearly demonstrates that citizenship is not merely an economic transaction but also a legal and political relationship of belonging. Nevertheless, Golden Visa programs continue to exist in many member states on a legally ambiguous basis. This situation reveals how fragile the balance is between the EU’s common citizenship law and national interests. A genuine solution lies in removing citizenship from the realm of purchasable commodities, introducing regulations in line with the principles of equality and transparency, and ensuring that European values are upheld in practice. The measure of belonging to the Union is not a bank account, but a commitment to law, solidarity, and shared democratic values.
[1] European Commission. (2022). Investor citizenship and residence schemes in the European Union. https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2022-01/investor-schemes-report_en.pdf, (Date Accessed: 23.07.2025).
[2] GRECO. (2021). Corruption risks of citizenship and residence schemes. Council of Europe. https://www.coe.int/en/web/greco, (Date Accessed: 23.07.2025).
[3] Carrera, S., & Guild, E. (2017). EU citizenship and federalism: The role of rights. Springer.
[4] CJEU. (2025). Commission v. Malta (Golden Passport Ruling), Case C-12/23. https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=XXXXXX, (Date Accessed: 23.07.2025).
[5] Carrera, S., & Vankova, Z. (2020). Re-thinking the attractiveness of EU citizenship: Comparative perspectives on investment migration schemes (CEPS Papers in Liberty and Security in Europe No. 2020-03). Centre for European Policy Studies. https://www.ceps.eu/ceps-publications/re-thinking-the-attractiveness-of-eu-citizenship/
[6] Van den Brink, M. (2021). EU citizenship and member state nationality: Rethinking the relationship. European Law Review, 46(2), 212–229.
[7] Shachar, A., & Hirschl, R. (2014). On citizenship, states, and markets. Journal of Political Philosophy, 22(2), 231–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12025
[8] European Commission. (2022). Investor citizenship and residence schemes in the European Union. https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2022-01/investor-schemes-report_en.pdf, (Date Accessed: 23.07.2025).
[9] Fernandes, J., & Pinho, M. (2023). Golden visa programmes and housing inequality in Southern Europe. European Urban and Regional Studies, 30(2), 145–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/09697764221149352
[10] Shaw, J. (2018). Citizenship and equality in the European Union. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 16(3), 737–754. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moy056
[11] Bauböck, R. (2018). Genuine links and useful passports: Evaluating strategic uses of citizenship. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(14), 2423–2438. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2017.1408463
[12] Van den Brink, M. (2021). EU citizenship and member state nationality: Rethinking the relationship. European Law Review, 46(2), 212–229.
