Malta, a member state of the European Union, operated an official citizenship by investment scheme. The European Commission took the scheme to court, and the Court of Justice of the European Union gave its judgment on 29 April 2025. The judgment is one of the most important official texts on the future of citizenship programmes in Europe. This article is based on the full text of the judgment in the EU's official legal database (`EUR-Lex`) and the Court's press release No 52/25, both checked on 25 October 2026.
The case at a glance
| Topic | What the official text says |
|---|---|
| Court | Court of Justice of the European Union, Grand Chamber, with 13 judges |
| Case number | C-181/23, European Commission v Republic of Malta |
| Action brought | 21 March 2023 |
| Hearing | 17 June 2024 |
| Advocate General's opinion | 4 October 2024 |
| Judgment | 29 April 2025 |
| Outcome | Malta failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU and Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union |
| Costs | borne by Malta |
What did Malta's 2020 scheme require?
According to the judgment, Malta amended its citizenship law in July 2020 and on 20 November 2020 adopted the regulations on "Maltese Citizenship by Naturalisation for Exceptional Services by Direct Investment". Its main conditions, as set out in paragraphs 24 and 102 of the judgment, were:
| Condition | Amount |
|---|---|
| Contribution to the Maltese Government | EUR 600,000 or EUR 750,000; EUR 10,000 of it as a non-refundable deposit |
| Residential property | buying property worth at least EUR 700,000, or leasing property for an annual rent of at least EUR 16,000 for at least 5 years |
| Donation | at least EUR 10,000 to a registered philanthropic, cultural, sports, scientific, animal welfare or artistic organisation |
| Legal residence | 36 months; reduced to 12 months with EUR 150,000 more (that is, EUR 750,000 instead of EUR 600,000) |
| Eligibility check | passing the authorities' assessment and being authorised to submit an application |
| Family members | additional payments which, according to the judgment, had been raised to EUR 50,000 for spouses and all children |
| Cap | 400 certificates a year and 1,500 main applicants in total, excluding dependants |
Malta's earlier scheme, the 2014 "Individual Investor Programme", had a cap of 1,800 main applicants. According to the judgment, the Commission brought the action only against the 2020 scheme.
The case before the Court
| Date | Event under paragraphs 30 to 40 of the judgment |
|---|---|
| 1 April 2020 | Commission letter to Malta about the "sale" of Union citizenship |
| 20 October 2020 | Commission letter of formal notice |
| 18 December 2020 | Malta's reply: applications under the 2014 scheme accepted only until 15 August 2020 |
| 9 June 2021 | Additional letter of formal notice: the 2020 scheme is also transactional |
| 6 August 2021 | Malta's reply disagreeing with the Commission |
| 2 March 2022 | Malta suspends the scheme for Russian and Belarusian nationals |
| 28 March 2022 | Commission Recommendation: investor citizenship schemes should be repealed |
| 6 April 2022 | Commission reasoned opinion with a two-month deadline |
| 6 June 2022 | Malta again disagrees |
| 21 March 2023 | Action brought before the Court |
According to paragraph 36 of the judgment, when Malta suspended the scheme for Russia and Belarus, it also did not operate it for nationals of Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, North Korea, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen.
What did the Court say?
The Court's reasoning can be summarised in a few steps:
- Member states' powers are limited by EU law. Each member state lays down the conditions for granting and losing its nationality, but must exercise that power with due regard to EU law (paragraphs 81 and 98).
- Nationality rests on solidarity and good faith. The Court says the bedrock of the bond of nationality is the "special relationship of solidarity and good faith" between the state and its nationals and the reciprocity of rights and duties (paragraph 96).
- Nationality for payment is "commercialisation". A scheme that, at the end of a transactional procedure, essentially grants nationality in exchange for predetermined payments or investments commercialises the nationality of a member state and, by extension, Union citizenship (paragraphs 99 and 100).
- Mutual trust suffers. Member states must recognise nationality granted by another member state; transactional naturalisation calls into question the trust on which that recognition rests (paragraph 101).
Why was Malta's residence condition not enough?
In paragraph 109 the Court notes that the residence period could be reduced from three years to one year by paying EUR 150,000 more, so the residence condition itself was tied to payment. In paragraphs 110 and 111 it compares this with ordinary naturalisation in Malta, which requires 12 months of continuous residence before the application and at least four years of residence in the six years before that.
The background checks were not enough either
Malta said it checked applicants' business ties, political exposure, source of wealth and reputation. In paragraphs 113 and 114 the Court replies that these checks only determine whether a risk prevents the grant of nationality; they do not assess whether the applicant's situation justifies it. So they do not change the transactional nature of the scheme.
Advertising by authorised agents
In paragraphs 119 and 120 the Court refers to the websites of authorised agents promoting the scheme, which offered the right to reside, study and work in the 27 EU countries. According to the Court, applications could be submitted only through these agents. This presentation showed that the scheme primarily offered the advantages of Union citizenship.
The limits of the ruling: what is not in it?
| Question | What follows from the official text |
|---|---|
| What does the ruling order? | It declares that Malta failed to fulfil its obligations and orders Malta to pay the costs |
| Does it rule on people who already received citizenship? | The operative part says nothing about them |
| Is it about countries outside the EU? | No; the action was against a member state and concerns EU law |
| What happens after the ruling? | According to the Court's press release, the member state must comply without delay; if it does not, the Commission may bring a further action seeking financial penalties |
In our check of 25 October 2026 we did not read an official Maltese text on the measures taken after the ruling, so this article says nothing about them.
The link with Dominica and Vanuatu
Dominica and Vanuatu are not EU members, and this ruling is not about their programmes. The EU's concern about the citizenship programmes of non-member countries appears elsewhere: in the visa-exemption suspension mechanism. In the article "The EU's new visa-exemption suspension mechanism and citizenship programmes" we explain that investor citizenship schemes raising security concerns are one of the new grounds for suspension.
Two examples
These examples are hypothetical and only put the official conditions above side by side.
Example 1: the minimum cost of Malta's 2020 scheme for one person. With the conditions listed in the judgment:
| Route | Calculation | Total |
|---|---|---|
| 36 months' residence and buying property | 600,000 + 700,000 + 10,000 | EUR 1,310,000 |
| 12 months' residence and buying property | 750,000 + 700,000 + 10,000 | EUR 1,460,000 |
| 36 months' residence and a five-year lease | 600,000 + (5 × 16,000) + 10,000 | EUR 690,000 |
The difference between the first two rows is exactly the EUR 150,000 the Court pointed to in paragraph 109: two years less residence in exchange for more money. The property bought remains the applicant's asset, but in this table it is part of the amount needed to enter the scheme.
Example 2: a Dominica citizen. Someone who obtained Dominica citizenship by investment asks whether this ruling affects them.
| Question | Answer based on the official texts |
|---|---|
| Is the ruling about Dominica's programme? | No; it is about Malta's programme as a member state |
| What matters for their travel to Europe? | Dominica's Schengen short-stay visa exemption and its suspension mechanism |
| Where to read more? | The articles "The EU's new visa-exemption suspension mechanism and citizenship programmes" and "The Schengen 90/180-day rule, simply explained" |
Practical points
- If you are offered "European citizenship for an investment", keep the date of this ruling in mind and ask the official source of that country about the programme's status.
- Distinguish citizenship from residence by investment; the article "Citizenship or residency by investment: the differences" explains the difference.
- An agent's advertising does not replace the official text; the Court relied on such advertising too. See the signs of a misleading offer in the article "How to avoid scams in citizenship programmes".
- For the Dominica and Vanuatu programmes, follow the rules on travel to Europe from the EU's official sources.
Royal Golden does not give legal advice. This article is general information, and the interpretation of the ruling for any particular situation rests with the competent courts and authorities.
Sources
- EU official legal database (EUR-Lex), judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) in case C-181/23, Commission v Malta, 29 April 2025 — https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62023CJ0181 (checked on 25 October 2026)
- Court of Justice of the European Union, press release No 52/25, 29 April 2025 — https://curia.europa.eu/site/upload/docs/application/pdf/2025-04/cp250052en.pdf (checked on 25 October 2026)