Henley & Partners Critiques EU Court Ruling on Malta's Citizenship Scheme

London, April 29, 2025 – In response to the recent ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), Henley & Partners has publicly voiced its disappointment over the court's characterization of Malta's citizenship program. The decision, described by Henley as politically charged, alleges that the program contravenes EU law and represents a commercialization of citizenship.

The court's ruling closes a legal dispute initiated by the European Commission in March 2023, which claimed that Malta's "citizenship by investment" initiative violated the principle of loyal cooperation—an ambiguous guideline under EU law—and undermined the integrity of EU citizenship. Critics argue the Commission's stance lacks a robust legal basis, as noted by many legal experts and even the Court's own Advocate General prior to the ruling.

Dr. Christian H. Kälin, the President of Henley & Partners, stated, “The notion that investment migration undermines solidarity within the EU is not only unfounded but also reflects a troubling misunderstanding of the socioeconomic roles these programs play. The Maltese framework exemplifies responsible statehood and should not be viewed through the lens of opportunism.”

Kälin further emphasized that the ruling undermines two core values of the EU—democratic legitimacy and the rule of law—by appearing overly influenced by political agendas. The stark contrast between the judgements made in the General Advocate’s conclusion and the court’s decision suggests a troubling deviation from coherent judicial reasoning.

This verdict signifies a complete turnaround in the court's previous stance, raising fears about the increasing politicization of EU legal institutions. The implications of this ruling could extend beyond Malta, as it may discourage other nations from pursuing similar investment migration strategies, potentially stifling economic resilience, particularly in smaller member states.

In his dialogue, Kälin urged that this ruling should not diminish the potential for a rational and fact-based discussion regarding the role of investment migration within the European project. He contended that preserving national sovereignty while bolstering economic resilience must be regarded as essential to a united yet diverse Europe. Rather than rejecting investment migration, the EU should focus on improving due diligence and harmonizing regulatory oversight to attract individuals who can significantly contribute through private investments, talent, and entrepreneurship—elements that are urgently needed in Europe.

The conversation surrounding investment migration is critical now more than ever, as economies worldwide grapple with recovery challenges. As Henley & Partners advocates for a reevaluation of the conversation surrounding investment migration, it encourages stakeholders to engage in constructive dialogue to navigate the complexities of state citizenship in a globalized economy.

In conclusion, the Malta citizenship program's introduction has sparked a spirited debate not just in legal circles but across the EU, with calls from various quarters suggesting a need for a comprehensive review of how citizenship is evaluated, granted, and understood within the EU framework. The future of such programs may hinge on regional cooperation and mutual understanding more so than on stringent legal parameters.

This article aims to delve into the repercussions of the ECJ's decision and highlights the necessity for a balanced and pragmatic approach towards investment migration, considering the unique economic dynamics of member states like Malta.