Suchergebnisse

Malta's legal regime on citizenship is relatively young as it came into being on the day of Malta's acquisition of independence from British rule in 1964. Throughout these years, however, particularly over the past 25 years, it has undergone extensive alterations marking changes in the governing principles. Malta's first citizenship provisions were a combined application of the ius soli and ius sanguinis principles with a strict prohibition of dual/multiple citizenship and in certain respects manifested a degree of gender inequality. Reforms in 1989, 2000 and 2007 brought about a radical change of policy regarding citizenship by in particular (i) reversing the prohibition against dual/multiple citizenship, in certain instances even retrospectively, and extending dual citizenship not only to those who had been Maltese citizens by birth in Malta and lost this Maltese citizenship on emigrating but also to first, second and subsequent generations of Maltese born outside Malta and living abroad whose Maltese citizenship derived from descent rather than birth in Malta; (ii) shifting to a rule based more on ius sanguinis than on ius soli and (iii) removing gender inequality. Apart from the existing routes by naturalisation and registration, a more recent reform in 2013 introduced a new route for the acquisition of Maltese citizenship through an investment scheme. This reform took many by surprise, in part because there was no other citizenship-by-investment scheme in existence up until then, but also because, as a policy, it marks a radical shift from the 'protectionist', 'arbitrary' and 'discretionary' policy of citizenship acquisition by naturalisation. The relevant Maltese legislation uses the terms 'ċittadin' ('citizen') and 'ċittadinanza' ('citizenship') rather than 'nazzjonalità' ('nationality') in describing the bond between Malta and persons of Maltese descent or those who have acquired this bond through registration or naturalisation. Thus, the technical legal term is 'ċittadinanza' not 'nazzjonalità'. However, nowhere in the legislation is there a definition of any of these terms. The main legislation is the Maltese Citizenship Act and it regulates the acquisition, deprivation and renunciation of Maltese 'ċittadinanza'. Likewise the Constitution of Malta only speaks of the acquisition of 'ċittadinanza' and the rights attached to 'ċittadinanza'. Although the term 'nazzjonalità' is also used in the Immigration Act and the Malta Citizenship Act, it is used in a non-technical and generic way to mean the provenance of a person rather than a status that gives specific legal rights.Citizenship ; peer-reviewed

Small economies and particularly islands are often accused of finding creative means of sourcing income, at times bordering on legal yet dubious and debatable schemes. The most recent that has come under attack is the selling of citizenship or residency, with accusations of money laundering and tax evasion routes. Since such schemes attract the richer crust of society, the expectations are that such individuals have ulterior motives for requiring another country to reside in or be a citizen of. Can such schemes be viewed solely from such a negative perspective? Do they only entice persons with bad intentions or do such programmes also help in the economic development of these small countries? This paper looks at the schemes which are presently in place worldwide and then focuses on the recent scheme adopted by Malta. This programme has been met with significant resistance by the European Union, however, it needs to be acknowledged that other EU member states have similar citizenship/residency programmes. What role is the programme maintaining in the economic development of Malta? How successful has it been and what are the expectations for its future continuing process? ; peer-reviewed

This paper covers citizenship by investment (CBI) schemes in the European Union (EU) context which allow to acquire nationality of the EU member state through targeted investments. We were verifying whether the negative attitude of the EU towards the CBI schemes of member states and the ongoing war in Ukraine threaten their very existence. In order to achieve the objective, we analysed the rules on the acquisition of citizenship by naturalization as well as the relationship between nationality of the EU member states, which is still their exclusive competence and the EU citizenship status. Subsequently, we compared CBI schemes of three EU member states (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Malta). The results show that the EU has put pressure on member states to cancel their CBI programs because of the complex relationship between the national citizenship on the one hand and the EU citizenship and related rights enforceable across the whole EU on the other hand. This EU pressure has been further intensified following the war in Ukraine. The reason is that Russian nationals made up a significant number of CBI applicants and also because some Russian or Belarusian nationals who are supporting the war in Ukraine might have acquired EU citizenship under CBI schemes. Of the three countries we analysed, only Malta currently has a valid CBI program. Bulgaria and Cyprus abolished their CBI programs. This development indicates that the EU has gradually succeeded in eliminating the existence of CBI in the EU member states. However, it is not yet clear whether this practice of member states is contrary to the EU law. We assume that the Court of Justice of the EU will resolve this question in the ongoing infringement procedure initiated by the European Commission against Malta.

This article provides a brief critical assessment of the European Commission's January 2019 "Report on Investor Citizenship and Residence Schemes in the European Union". Since it is the first detailed document by the Commission outlining this institution's position on the matters
of investment residence and citizenship, and given the Commission's recently articulated intentions to take Cyprus and Malta to Court over their investment migration law and practice, the Report in question is of paramount importance. The document sets the legal-political context of the regulation of the migration of wealthy third-country nationals in Europe. It is also deeply flawed. Rather that summarising the document, this article focuses on five core deficiencies of the Commission's embarrassing product and demonstrates how the Commission failed to get the EU's own law right, in addition to showing a poor understanding of international law on the matter. Ripe with nationalist assumptions not rooted in the Treaties or the secondary law of the Union and showcasing a timid, convoluted and inconsistent analysis of the issues it purports to address, the Report has unsurprisingly failed to change the landscape of regulation in the field of investment citizenship and residence in the EU or anywhere else in the world. What it did make clear, however, was that the mere political suspicion of a particular type of naturalisation is enough for the European Commission to set aside the law and misinform the public, underlying once again the problematic tension between the growing political nature of this institution and its key task as guardian of the Treaties. There is a burning need for the Commission to take a more careful, coherent and informed approach to its actions, an approach indispensable for the preservation of the rule of law in the Union.