European Citizenship by Investment in 2026

European Citizenship by Investment (CBI) has long existed at the intersection of national sovereignty and Union-wide legal obligations. While the EU treaties leave nationality decisions to the Member States, they also attach Union-wide rights to those decisions. The 2024 Advocate General's Opinion in Commission v. Malta upheld Malta's sovereign discretion. However, the CJEU ultimately ruled that Malta’s CBI model violated EU law for lacking a genuine connection between investor and state. This judgment does not outlaw CBI, but reshapes its future — towards investment-based naturalisation models that satisfy the EU’s integrity standards.

EU citizenship, codified under Article 20 TFEU, is granted to nationals of EU Member States and confers rights such as free movement, consular protection, and participation in European democratic life.

Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union.

While nationality remains within the sovereign competence of Member States, cases such as Micheletti (C-369/90) and Tjebbes (C-221/17) established that such powers must be exercised in line with EU law, especially where EU citizenship is a consequence.

Declaration No 2 on nationality of a Member State, annexed to the final act of the Treaty on European Union exposes the extent of Member State prerogatives in the area of citizenship, stating that the acquisition of Member State nationality automatically results in the acquisition of EU citizenship, which all other Member States are bound under EU law to recognise. (AG Opinion, EC v Malta, 5 Oct 2024, para. 45).

… wherever in the Treaty establishing the European Community reference is made to nationals of the Member States, the question whether an individual possesses the nationality of a Member State shall be settled solely by reference to the national law of the Member State concerned…’
Treaty on European Union: Declaration No 2 on nationality of a Member State.

The concept of citizenship by investment took hold in the EU through Cyprus and Malta, where economic contribution replaced traditional integration requirements. Cyprus launched a very lightly regulated route to citizenship in 2014 evolving it and adding layers of regulation over time leading to insufficient scrutiny of applicants and ultimately the abrupt demise of the Cypriot Investment Programme in 2020.

Malta started its Individual Investment Programme with controversy with an initially circulated draft envisaging a 'citizenship for a fee' model resulting in naturalisation after just 6 months of residency. However, Malta quickly bounced back with a strengthening of the residence requirement, requiring one year of residence prior to naturalisation together with the purchase or rental of property and an investment Maltese government bonds in addition to the proposed contribution. This earned the Maltese citizenship programme the approval of the European Union at the outset (Joint Press Statement by the EC and the Maltese IIP Agency, 29 Jan 2014).

Malta's CBI story is marked by a well-resourced citizenship agency geared up to European standards of due diligence and Anti-Money Laundering measure together with a residency requirement agreed with the European Union at the outset. A high rejection rate characterised the first years of the programme until it was clear that Malta would not admit applicants with an undesirable reputation, in observance of the spirit of solidarity expected of it by its European partners.

These schemes attracted both economic investment and criticism, prompting pressure from the European Commission, which raised concerns about security, money laundering risks, and the undermining of mutual trust between Member States. When the time came for the European Commission to start infringement proceedings in respect of Malta, running the last remaining CBI in Europe, security concerns did not feature on the EC's case which focussed exclusively on the commercialisation of citizenship due to an absence of genuine links with Malta.

Malta’s Individual Investor Programme (IIP) and its successor regime the Granting of Maltese Citizenship by Exceptional Services permitted naturalisation based on significant investment, the keeping of a rented or purchased residence during the initial residence period and for 5 years post-naturalisation and at least 30 days of in-country presence. In addition to this, we have advised clients to ensure they build a footprint in Malta that befit their specific profiles in the form of 'genuine links'. Some invested in local businesses and startups, others enrolled in academic institutions here, others still registered their private aircraft or pleasure yachts in Malta, while others structured and performed private equity investments in Malta.

Unfortunately, the silence of Maltese law on specific requirements, other than the general reference to "personal, financial and investment ties with Malta" reference in the agents guidebook, led to European quarters to assume there were none.

In Case C-181/23, the European Commission initiated infringement proceedings, arguing the scheme:

• Undermined the status of EU citizenship,
• Violated Article 4(3) TEU (sincere cooperation), and
• Enabled access to EU rights without a genuine link to the issuing Member State.

Crucially, Advocate General Anthony Michael Collins sided with Malta, issuing a robust Opinion in 2024 affirming that nationality decisions fall within the exclusive competence of Member States. He emphasised that EU citizenship is a derivative status, and that Malta’s approach — while politically contentious — did not infringe EU law.

The European Court's own Advocate General undertook an in-depth study of the process and found that checks at the outset of an application and at the end before proceeding with the grant of citizenship ensured that applicants would have satisfied their pre-approved commitments to genuine links with Malta.

Despite the AG’s backing of Malta, the CJEU ruled against Malta on 21 March 2023.
The Court held that granting citizenship in exchange for financial consideration alone, without ensuring a genuine connection between the individual and the State, breached the principle of sincere cooperation under Article 4(3) TEU.

The judgment effectively introduced a substantive requirement for national citizenship schemes that confer EU citizenship: a real, verifiable bond between the applicant and the granting country.

While the Court ruled Malta’s model in its current state unlawful, it did not reject the concept of economic citizenship outright. Rather, it made clear that:

• A financial contribution alone is insufficient,
• A genuine link must be established, and
• Member States must exercise their nationality prerogative in a manner consistent with the values and obligations of the EU legal order.

This opens the door for a reimagined generation of CBI models built on:

• Actual residence, even if limited,
• Cultural, linguistic, or civic integration, and the already existing
• Transparent due diligence, aligning with both EU values and global best practice.

Strategic Takeaways for Member States and Stakeholders

• Citizenship by Investment is not dead in Europe — but it must now evolve.
• Programmes must be restructured around residence, integration, and genuine ties, not mere economic exchange.
• Member States like Malta can retain investor migration tools by shifting towards compliant naturalisation-by-investment models.
• Future-proof CBI frameworks may resemble tiered naturalisation schemes, combining investment, residence, and social participation over time.

Recent reforms have also given prominence to the principle of Contributive Belonging - a doctrine coined by Dr Jean-Philippe Chetcuti to describe the European citizenship law landscape in the wake of EC v Malta where citizenship is earned, not bought, through contribution and belonging. Chetcuti's doctrine describes the idea that the grant of citizenship should reflect not only formal criteria, but also measurable integration and contributions of economic, cultural, or civic value. By embedding this doctrine into its legal practice, Malta positions citizenship not as a transaction, but as recognition of reciprocal value between the individual and the State. This development is shaping broader European discourse on the future of naturalisation.

Following the April 2025 decision in European Commission v Malta (C-715/20), Malta has widened its naturalisation framework to include its existing Citizenship by Merit (CBM) route. This merit-based citizenship framework retains the discretionary nature of citizenship by merit law while aligning with EU principles of proportionality and transparency. Applicants must demonstrate contributions or services of recognised value to Malta, complemented by residence and due diligence requirements. In this way, the CBM framework provides an EU-compliant alternative to the earlier investment-based pathways.

Contribution

Contribution starts with Applicant's profile and achievements: entrepreneurs, technologists, scientists, researchers, and philanthropists are specifically identified in Malta's Citizenship by Merit law. Our specialist citizenship by merit lawyers start by putting together the applicant's personal, professional and entrepreneurial credentials, as well as the candidate's philanthropic track record. The preparation proceeds with a discussion on the already existing or proposed exceptional contribution or service and an assessment of the extent it translates into impact that meets the national interest threshold. Exceptional contributions or services may be proposed in the fields of the art, cultural, heritage, and science, and other sectors aligned with Malta's Vision 2050, whether for-profit or not-for-profit. I hasten to clarify that merit-based citizenship is NOT akin to Entrepreneur or Investor Citizenship. Further, this involves NO donation to the State as a 'price' for citizenship, as this would run counter to the first limb of the 2025 European ruling.

Belonging

Observing the second limb of the European Court's ruling on Malta's now defunct CBI programme, Maltese law applies the Genuine Links principle established by ICJ in Nottebohm, reaffirmed by same European ruling. Today, the citizenship framework requires applicants to demonstrate substantive ties with Malta, in line with the Court ruling. Ties with Malta include a mix of physical presence, personal ties, commercial ties, investments and philanthropic activity in Malta.

Our European Citizenship Lawyers advise international families, entrepreneurs, and family offices on structuring pathways to naturalisation that are fully compliant with EU law and national legislation. We assist in assessing eligibility under Malta’s Citizenship by Merit framework, guiding contributions aligned with Vision 2050, and ensuring that applications meet the highest due diligence standards. With over 25 years’ experience, our team provides practical, confidential, and strategic advice for those considering European citizenship solutions.

European Citizenship FAQs

[question]Is European citizenship by investment still available in 2026?[/question]

[answer]European citizenship by investment, in the form of a transactional scheme based on predetermined payments or investments, is no longer viable within the EU after the CJEU judgment in Commission v Malta. EU Member States retain nationality competence, but citizenship rules must comply with EU law, sincere cooperation and the integrity of Union citizenship.[/answer]

[question]What did the CJEU decide in Commission v Malta?[/question]

[answer]The CJEU held that Malta’s 2020 investor citizenship scheme breached EU law because it established a transactional naturalisation procedure in exchange for predetermined payments or investments. The Court linked this to the commercialisation of Member State nationality and, by extension, Union citizenship.[/answer]

[question]Did the CJEU remove Malta’s power to grant citizenship?[/question]

[answer]No. The CJEU did not remove Malta’s national competence to grant citizenship. It confirmed that nationality remains within Member State competence, but that this competence must be exercised consistently with EU law where the grant of nationality also gives rise to Union citizenship rights.[/answer]

[question]What is the difference between citizenship by investment and citizenship by merit?[/question]

[answer]Citizenship by investment is generally associated with naturalisation based on predetermined financial payments or investments. Citizenship by merit is based on exceptional service, exceptional contribution or exceptional interest to the state or humanity. Malta’s post-2025 framework is structured around merit, discretion, contribution, due diligence and case-by-case evaluation.[/answer]

[question]What does genuine link mean in European citizenship law?[/question]

[answer]A genuine link refers to a real connection between the applicant and the granting state. In the post-Commission v Malta context, this may be evidenced through residence, contribution, integration, public-interest activity, professional achievement, cultural or philanthropic engagement and other verifiable ties rather than a purely financial transaction.[/answer]

[question]What is contributive belonging in citizenship law?[/question]

[answer]Contributive belonging describes a model of citizenship where nationality reflects a meaningful reciprocal relationship between the individual and the state. It focuses on contribution, integration, public value and evidence of belonging, rather than treating citizenship as a passive status or commercial entitlement.[/answer]

[question]Can investment still support a Maltese citizenship application?[/question]

[answer]Investment alone should not be treated as a basis for Maltese citizenship. Under the merit-based framework, economic activity may be relevant only where it forms part of an exceptional contribution, such as entrepreneurship, job creation, innovation or nationally significant impact, and remains subject to discretionary assessment and due diligence.[/answer]

[question]What is Malta Citizenship by Merit in 2026?[/question]

[answer]Malta Citizenship by Merit is a discretionary naturalisation route under Article 10(9) of the Maltese Citizenship Act and the relevant subsidiary regulations. It may apply to persons who render exceptional services, make exceptional contributions or are of exceptional interest to Malta or humanity.[/answer]

[question]Who may qualify for Malta Citizenship by Merit?[/question]

[answer]Potential applicants may include scientists, researchers, technologists, entrepreneurs, philanthropists, athletes, sports persons, artists, cultural performers and other persons whose profile, skills, talents or contribution significantly advance Malta’s national interest or benefit humanity. Eligibility is assessed case by case and is never automatic.[/answer]

[question]Does Malta Citizenship by Merit require residence in Malta?[/question]

[answer]Yes. The official process for citizenship by naturalisation on the basis of merit refers to residence in Malta and proof of title to adequate residential property. Residence should be approached as part of a wider factual connection with Malta, not as a box-ticking formality.[/answer]

[question]Does Maltese citizenship automatically create EU citizenship?[/question]

[answer]Under Article 20 TFEU, every person holding the nationality of an EU Member State is also a citizen of the Union. This is a legal consequence of Member State nationality. However, Maltese citizenship should not be presented as a mere route to EU rights, but as nationality grounded in Maltese law and EU-compliant principles.[/answer]

[question]Does Maltese citizenship create Maltese tax residence?[/question]

[answer]No. Citizenship does not automatically create Maltese tax residence or a Maltese tax status. Tax residence depends on separate factual and legal criteria, including residence, ordinary residence, domicile and other tax considerations. Citizenship, residence and tax residence should therefore be assessed separately.[/answer]

[question]Can family members be included in a citizenship by merit case?[/question]

[answer]The Maltese merit-based framework allows eligible dependants to be considered in appropriate cases, subject to the legislation and the facts of the application. Family inclusion should be assessed carefully, including dependency, documentation, due diligence and whether the principal applicant’s merit case supports the wider family request.[/answer]

[question]Is Malta Citizenship by Merit guaranteed if an applicant qualifies?[/question]

[answer]No. Malta Citizenship by Merit is discretionary and assessed case by case. An applicant may present a strong profile, contribution and supporting evidence, but the final decision remains with the competent Maltese authorities after evaluation, due diligence and legal review.[/answer]