Concept
Malta was the last EU state with a direct citizenship-by-investment programme: a contribution to the state in exchange for a Union passport. On 29 April 2025 the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union ended that model, holding it incompatible with EU law. Naturalisation in Malta on special grounds remains available in full — but only in a narrowed, merit-based form.
History of citizenship by investment
Malta launched investment citizenship in 2013 as the Individual Investor Programme (IIP) — one of the first and most expensive schemes of its kind in the EU. The programme immediately caused a dispute with the European Commission, which insisted that Union citizenship must not be turned into a commodity. Having exhausted its quota, in 2020 Malta introduced a new regulatory regime — the Granting of Citizenship for Exceptional Services Regulations, 2020 (Legal Notice 437 of 2020), built on Article 10(9) of the Citizenship Act. This established naturalisation for exceptional services by direct investment, known as MEIN.
The entry price was predetermined, which made the model legally vulnerable. An applicant contributed €600,000 to the National Development Fund after 36 months of residence, or €750,000 on the 12-month option; added €50,000 for each dependant; bought property worth at least €700,000 or rented it from €16,000 a year and held it for five years; and donated €10,000 to a registered NGO. The scheme was capped: no more than 400 approved applications a year and 1,500 main applicants over the entire life of the programme. The current merit channel has no quotas at all — each case is considered individually.
Judgment in Case C-181/23
On 29 April 2025 the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union, in Commission v Malta (C-181/23), held that the 2020 scheme commercialised the grant of Union citizenship and found it in breach of Article 20 TFEU on EU citizenship, read together with Article 4(3) TEU on sincere cooperation. The Court stated that the acquisition of Union citizenship cannot be the result of a commercial transaction. The model's key flaw was that the passport was issued against a predetermined payment, with no genuine link between the applicant and the country. Advocate General Anthony Collins had advised, in October 2024, that the action be dismissed, recognising Malta's sovereign right; the Court took the opposite position. Passports already issued remain valid.
The Court's reasoning rests on the nature of Union citizenship. It confers freedom of movement and depends on mutual trust between Member States and the recognition of one another's decisions. When one country grants citizenship in exchange for payment, it unilaterally increases the number of EU citizens recognised by the other Member States and undermines that trust. National competence over citizenship remains, but it must be exercised in accordance with EU law.
Malta must comply without delay with the judgment in the infringement action; if the Commission considers that the country is delaying compliance, a fresh action will follow — this time with financial penalties. At the same time, the Court did not annul passports already issued: it did not require retroactive withdrawal of citizenship, and status once acquired is preserved.
What Remains: Merit-Based Naturalization
Malta retained the institution of naturalisation for exceptional services under Article 10(9) of the Citizenship Act, introduced by Act XXXVIII of 2020 and brought into force on 28 July 2020, and amended it to meet the Court's requirements.
The Bill (Bill No. 140 of 2025) was introduced on 30 June 2025; it became the Maltese Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2025 (Act XXI of 2025), published in Government Gazette no. 21,474 of 24 July 2025, with the detail fixed by Legal Notice 159 of 2025 — the Granting of Citizenship for Exceptional Services (Amendment) Regulations, 2025, published in Government Gazette no. 21,478 of 29 July 2025, which rewrote the 2020 regulations.
There is no longer a fixed price list for a passport; what remains is a discretionary channel for genuinely outstanding people — scientists, athletes and cultural figures whose services to Malta the state assesses case by case. Before filing, the applicant needs at least eight months of lawful residence and title to adequate residential property, owned or leased; the Evaluation Board assesses the case and may require an interview.
The law describes exceptional services through a genuine link with Malta: a real contribution to the country's science, culture, sport, economy or public projects. The state decides at its own discretion, with no guaranteed outcome and no fixed sum. The channel is narrow and unpredictable: citizenship is not offered for purchase, but remains available to individual outstanding candidates.
The End of Investment Citizenship in the EU
Malta was the last state in the Union to offer citizenship directly in exchange for investment. Cyprus wound down its CBI scheme back in November 2020 after a string of scandals, and Bulgaria abolished its golden passports in 2022. After C-181/23 the citizenship-by-investment model inside the EU is fully closed, and EU pressure is shifting to golden visas — residence-by-investment programmes that the Commission likewise treats as a source of security and due-diligence risks.
For those who need a second passport, the workable alternatives lie outside the EU: the Caribbean CBI programmes — St Kitts and Nevis, Grenada, St Lucia — and Turkey citizenship by investment. Routes to EU citizenship now involve residence and naturalisation based on time, or descent. See also routes to EU citizenship and CBI as an institution.
Options for applicants
Direct investment purchase of a Maltese passport in its former form no longer exists. Merit-based naturalisation remains, but it applies to a narrow range of exceptional cases at the state’s discretion — the typical investor should not count on it. Those who saw Malta as a fast entry into EU citizenship would be well advised to turn to residence programmes such as the Malta Global Residence Programme and golden visas, consider descent-based routes, and look for investment citizenship outside the Union — in the Caribbean or Turkey.
Q/A
Can a Maltese passport granted under MEIN before the ruling be withdrawn?
No. The operative part of C-181/23 is confined to declaring a breach of Article 20 TFEU read with Article 4(3) TEU; the Court did not require the withdrawal of passports already issued. The pressure that follows is aimed at the state — the Commission returns to the Court for penalties, not at individual holders.
Can a contribution of EUR 600,000 still secure a Maltese passport?
No. The fixed tariff — EUR 600,000 after 36 months of residence, or EUR 750,000 on the twelve-month option — disappeared with the 2020 scheme. The Maltese Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2025 (Act XXI of 2025) removed both the predetermined sum and the licensed-agent system from the law.
Can an applicant with financial resources but no scientific or sporting achievements qualify through the merit channel?
No. Article 10(9) and the regulations provide three grounds: exceptional services to Malta or humanity; an exceptional contribution, including job creation; or naturalisation that is of exceptional interest to Malta. The Evaluation Board assesses the proposal and makes a recommendation; the Minister takes the discretionary final decision. A willingness to invest is not itself a ground and buys no outcome.
Must an applicant actually live in Malta to qualify for naturalisation by merit?
Yes. Naturalisation by merit requires at least eight months of lawful residence in Malta evidenced by a residence permit, plus title to adequate residential property, owned or leased. Applications are handled by the Komunità Malta agency, and the Evaluation Board may call the candidate for interview.
Does the C-181/23 judgment close Malta's golden visa as well?
No. The case concerned the grant of nationality, and residence-by-investment programmes are untouched — the Maltese residence route still operates. The Commission does treat golden visas as a risk area, so plans that depend on unchanged rules are vulnerable to regulatory changes.