Residence by investment in Southern Europe has entered a period of significant legal uncertainty following the Court of Justice of the European Union's judgment in Commission v Malta (Case C-181/23, 29 April 2025), which held that citizenship-by-investment schemes are incompatible with EU law. Spain has already abolished its golden visa programme under Ley Orgánica 1/2025 (3 April 2025), while Greece has restructured its scheme around tiered property thresholds and new rental restrictions. Investors and their advisers must reassess existing strategies in light of these developments, paying close attention to how national governments and EU institutions respond in the months ahead.
The Legal Landscape: From Citizenship to Residence
For years, Southern European states offered investors a clear pathway: acquire qualifying assets and obtain either residence or citizenship. The CJEU ruling in C-181/23 has drawn a sharp conceptual line. The Court held that a Member State may not confer citizenship – and with it, EU citizenship – as a commercial transaction detached from any genuine link to the Member State concerned. While the judgment's operative text targets citizenship-by-investment directly, its reasoning touches on foundational questions about the nature of EU citizenship and the limits of Member State competence in nationality matters.
The European Commission had argued before the Court that Malta's scheme was incompatible with the principle of sincere cooperation and with the very concept of EU citizenship under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The Court's agreement with that position places every remaining scheme that conflates investor status with nationality under scrutiny. What remains less settled is how far that reasoning extends to residence-by-investment programmes, which fall short of conferring citizenship but may still be seen as creating a two-tier access system to EU free movement rights.
Practitioners should note that the CJEU's judgment creates an interpretive space that the European Commission, the European Banking Authority (EBA), and the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) have each flagged in prior communications as an area of concern for due diligence, anti-money laundering compliance, and capital flows. Further guidance from those bodies remains anticipated, and the regulatory environment should be treated as evolving rather than settled.
Spain: A Programme Discontinued
Spain's decision to abolish its golden visa programme, enacted through Ley Orgánica 1/2025 on 3 April 2025, reflects a political and economic judgment that property-linked residence permissions were contributing to housing affordability pressures in major urban areas. For investors who had structured acquisitions around the Spanish golden visa property route, the consequences are immediate: no new applications may be submitted under the old framework, and any forward planning that relied on that route must be reconsidered.
The key questions that arise for affected investors include:
- The transitional status of pending applications lodged before the abolition date and whether these will be processed under the prior rules;
- The position of investors who had already obtained initial residence permits under the scheme and are approaching renewal;
- Whether alternative visa categories – such as the non-lucrative residence visa or the digital nomad visa introduced under Spanish law – can meet comparable objectives;
- The impact on conveyancing transactions where the residence benefit was an express or implied condition of the purchase.
National rules on transitional arrangements have not been fully published at the time of writing, and investors should seek specific legal advice rather than rely on informal interpretations circulating in the market.
If your investment planning included Spain as a primary or secondary jurisdiction, our team is available to review your specific position. Please reach out to info@ferrazwhitmore.com or visit our contacts page to arrange a consultation.
Greece: Restructured Thresholds and the Short-Term Rental Restriction
Greece has retained its golden visa property programme but substantially restructured it. The current framework operates on a three-tier threshold system:
- EUR 800,000 – applicable in designated high-demand zones;
- EUR 400,000 – applicable in a second tier of areas;
- EUR 250,000 – applicable in remaining qualifying areas.
The most operationally significant change for many investors is the restriction on short-term rentals of properties acquired under the golden visa route. Properties held to maintain the qualifying investment may not simultaneously generate income through short-term rental platforms. This materially alters the economic logic of property investment that had previously combined residence eligibility with rental yield, and it requires investors to model their returns on the basis of long-term tenancy or capital appreciation alone.
The rental restriction also raises conveyancing due diligence questions. Buyers must verify that a target property does not carry historic short-term rental obligations that would conflict with the golden visa conditions, and sellers need to understand the disclosure requirements around such restrictions. These are not merely administrative points – non-compliance could affect the validity of the residence permit.
Greece's approach illustrates a broader pattern: rather than abolishing schemes outright, some Member States are imposing conditions that reshape investor behaviour while retaining the programme's fiscal and economic benefits. Whether that approach will prove durable under continued European Commission scrutiny remains an open question.
Malta After the CJEU Judgment
Malta's citizenship-by-investment scheme was the direct subject of the CJEU's ruling in C-181/23. Following the judgment of 29 April 2025, Malta was required to bring its scheme into conformity with EU law. The precise timeline for discontinuation and the status of applications at various stages of processing are subject to ongoing developments; investors and their advisers should monitor official communications from Maltese authorities and the European Commission rather than rely on market commentary.
Our firm has published a dedicated analytical guide on this specific question. Readers who held or were considering applications under the Maltese route are encouraged to consult the Malta residence after CBI guide for a more detailed treatment of the post-judgment position.
What can be said with confidence is that the judgment significantly narrows the options available to investors who were using Malta as a gateway to EU citizenship. The distinction the Court has drawn – between residence (which Member States retain discretion to offer) and citizenship (which cannot be sold as a commercial product) – will shape how future programmes are designed and defended across the Union.
Cross-Border Implications for Investors and Structures
The developments in Spain, Greece, and Malta do not exist in isolation. Several cross-border considerations are particularly relevant for investors who hold assets or corporate structures across multiple Southern European jurisdictions:
- Regulatory reporting: The EBA and ESMA have both expressed interest in how residence-by-investment programmes interact with anti-money laundering obligations and the due diligence requirements applicable to financial institutions and investment intermediaries. Investors whose asset structures were documented partly by reference to golden visa status should review whether their compliance profile remains accurate.
- Tax residency: Residence permits obtained through investment programmes may have been used as part of a tax residency planning strategy. If a permit lapses, is not renewed, or the programme is discontinued, the tax residency position may require reassessment. This is particularly relevant where investors relied on Southern European residency to structure their position vis-à-vis a higher-tax home jurisdiction.
- Corporate holding structures: Some investors hold Southern European real estate through corporate vehicles, with the golden visa attached to the individual rather than the entity. The abolition or restructuring of residence programmes does not directly affect property ownership, but it may affect the rationale for maintaining certain structures.
- EUR-Lex monitoring: Secondary legislation and Commission guidance published through EUR-Lex remains the most authoritative source for tracking how EU institutions intend to apply the CJEU ruling. Advisers should maintain a watching brief on relevant instruments.
Strategic Recommendations for Investors Reassessing Their Options
Given the pace of change, investors considering or currently holding Southern European residence-by-investment positions should take a structured approach to reassessment. The following considerations are likely to be relevant in most cases:
- Audit existing permits: Understand the renewal timeline, the conditions attached, and whether any change in law affects the validity of what has already been obtained.
- Review property holding conditions: In Greece in particular, confirm that any short-term rental activity is either absent or has been wound down in compliance with the new restrictions.
- Identify alternative routes: Several EU Member States retain lawful and compliant residence-by-investment frameworks. Portugal, for example, has restructured but retained elements of its programme. The appropriate alternative will depend on the investor's objectives, asset profile, and personal circumstances.
- Engage with conveyancing counsel early: Where property transactions are in progress or contemplated, conveyancing advice should be taken before exchange rather than after, particularly where the investment rationale is tied to a specific residence outcome.
- Plan for regulatory evolution: The European Commission has indicated that it regards investor citizenship and certain investor residence arrangements as an ongoing policy concern. Strategies built on the assumption that current rules are permanent carry a higher risk profile than they did several years ago.
For investors exploring immigration and residence options across the EU, our team works with clients on a case-by-case basis to identify compliant structures that align with individual objectives and risk tolerance.
The Outlook: Convergence or Fragmentation?
The direction of EU-level policy appears to be towards greater scrutiny of any scheme that attaches significant public-law benefits to private investment, particularly where those benefits interact with EU citizenship or free movement. Whether this produces formal harmonisation – for example, through a Commission proposal for a regulation or directive governing residence-by-investment – or simply continuing bilateral pressure on individual Member States remains to be seen.
What is clear is that the era in which Southern European golden visa property programmes could be designed and marketed with minimal EU-level interference has ended. National programmes will need to demonstrate that they impose genuine links, meaningful due diligence, and conditions that do not amount to the commercial sale of EU legal status. Programmes that fail that test are likely to face the same trajectory as Malta's citizenship scheme.
For investors, the practical implication is that decisions taken now should be stress-tested against a scenario in which further changes occur within the next two to three years. Structures that remain legally and commercially sound even if the underlying programme is modified or discontinued are more resilient than those that depend on continuity of a specific regulatory arrangement.
Our real estate legal services team regularly advises on the intersection of property acquisition and residence planning across Southern Europe and the broader EU. If you would like to discuss how recent developments affect your specific situation, we welcome enquiries at info@ferrazwhitmore.com or through our contacts page.
Disclaimer: This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. Ferraz & Whitmore assumes no liability for actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this material. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@ferrazwhitmore.com.