If you reside in a country where access to Europe or the U.S. is a challenge and you want to get American citizenship or become a passport holder of Malta with access to all EU member countries, you would need to have money and win the immigration lottery in the United States or take the year-long process of immigrating.
Smaller countries, such as some Caribbean or Pacific nations, offer citizenship for a lower price and access to the U.S. or Europe.
Malta is a full European Union member. The Exceptional Investor Naturalisation (MEIN) allows those who invest more than EUR 600,000 to reside in any European Union Country.
On April 29th, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) delivered a decision that marks a new milestone in the history of the investment mobility industry. With this ruling, Malta’s Exceptional Investor Naturalisation (MEIN) program has effectively reached the end of its legal road. As the highest judicial authority in the European Union, the ECJ’s decisions are final and not subject to appeal.
Though case law is not traditionally considered a direct source of law in many continental legal systems, within the European Union, ECJ rulings carry enormous interpretative authority. They often serve as a primary expression of the EU’s evolving legal and constitutional identity.
The case brought by the European Commission against Malta’s MEIN program challenged a citizenship pathway that granted nationality (and, by extension, EU citizenship) to third-country nationals who demonstrated a connection through a series of requirements:
- Substantial financial contribution to Malta’s economic development of at least EUR 600,000, directly supporting infrastructure, healthcare, and education initiatives
- Meaningful philanthropic donation to registered Maltese non-governmental organizations that serve critical social needs
- Submission to a comprehensive vetting system, including multi-tiered due diligence and AML processes that exceed international standards
- Completion of a minimum 12-month residency period in Malta
- Verifiable proof of physical presence and address in Malta
The cumulative effect of these requirements outlines a deliberate and selective pathway toward Maltese citizenship.
Professor Dimitry Kochenov, a leading scholar in EU citizenship law, has argued for reimagining citizenship as a legal status that embraces a broader, more inclusive understanding of belonging. He calls for a framework acknowledging diverse connections to the state, moving beyond rigid definitions rooted in ethnicity or birthplace. This vision was reflected in Malta’s MEIN program, which, in alignment with the European Commission’s earlier recommendations, implemented a new legal and procedural framework precisely to foster genuine connections between applicants and the state.
It is important to approach the implementation of this ruling with perspective. The European legal order is founded on legal certainty and legitimate expectations. Individuals who engaged with the program in good faith under a lawfully established regime have rights and interests that must be considered as part of any transition.
For Malta specifically, one of the most immediate legal imperatives is applying legal certainty and protecting legitimate expectations for individuals who applied under the MEIN program in good faith. These applicants engaged with a lawfully established regime and made significant personal and financial decisions based on the assurances and legal frameworks then in place. Accordingly, the phasing out of the MEIN scheme must include safeguards to ensure that their rights are respected by EU legal principles.
Global Citizen Solutions, a for-profit company in business to sell citizenships, stepped up and protested against this court ruling, and is fighting to minimize consequences.
The EU and Malta must safeguard and uphold the legal certainty and fundamental rights of all current applicants by:
- Protecting legitimate expectations:Â Applicants who submitted complete and compliant applications before the ECJ ruling could be allowed to complete the process under the previous legal framework. This respects the principle of legitimate expectations, as these individuals acted in good faith under a lawful system. ECJ case law has repeatedly upheld the right of individuals to rely on legal regimes that were valid at the time of their actions (e.g., Joined Cases C-110/03, C-147/03, Belgium v. Commission).
- Implementing a Transitional Period with Clear Legal Guarantees:Â Implement a formally defined transitional phase, during which the MEIN scheme is phased out, but pending cases are processed under clearly defined and publicly communicated rules. (Art. 41 of CFR on the right of good administration).
Failing to implement safeguards that uphold legal certainty and fundamental rights during the phase-out of the MEIN program risks violating core principles of EU law, with potentially severe legal and reputational consequences. In particular, denying applicants the right to be heard or access to legal remedies would contravene Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR), which guarantee due process and effective judicial protection.
Similarly, failing to provide compensation or restitution to those who invested under a lawfully established regime could breach the principle of proportionality, as recognized in ECJ case law (e.g., Case C-201/08, Plantanol). Blanket rejections without individualized legal assessments would undermine the principles of fairness and non-discrimination. At the same time, the absence of parliamentary or judicial oversight would raise serious concerns regarding transparency and the rule of law, enshrined in Article 2 TEU.
Alternatively, Malta could adopt the bold course of action of pronouncing the ECJ’s judgment ultra vires (meaning that the Court has acted beyond its legal authority). In doing so, Malta would assert that, under the foundational treaties of the European Union, decisions concerning the acquisition and loss of nationality remain an exclusive domain of Member State sovereignty, shielded from supranational intervention.
In doing so, Malta would not only challenge the immediate legal effect of the judgment but also defend the constitutional balance established within the EU framework.
Such a declaration would signal that Malta does not recognize the Court’s authority to dictate nationality matters and would seek to preserve its sovereign prerogative. However, this move would inevitably trigger infringement proceedings and reputational costs, while also buying valuable time for domestic political and legal maneuvering.
The Malta Permanent Residence Programme (MPRP) remains unaffected.
It’s important to note that the Malta Permanent Residence Programme (MPRP) remains entirely unaffected by the ECJ’s ruling. Unlike the MEIN program, the MPRP grants only permanent residency status and therefore operates within a different legal framework that continues to be available. While residency programs across the EU face increasing regulatory scrutiny to ensure alignment with European security protocols and core values, they remain legitimate and distinct legal pathways that fall squarely within member states’ sovereign competencies regarding residency rights – a for-pay initiative
Beyond Malta: A Federal Moment in the Making
The significance of this decision stretches beyond Malta or any single program. It touches upon two foundational questions at the heart of the European project: the limits of national sovereignty and the emergence of functional federalism.
