Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 41kWORD 9k
12 March 2020
E-001589/2020
Question for written answer
to the Commission
Rule 138
José Gusmão, Marisa Matias
 Subject: Portuguese Government's lack of monitoring of the Golden Visa programme

Lisbon’s Administrative Court has found in favour of a Portuguese NGO and member of the global network Transparency International that made a freedom of information request, in the public interest, to the Portuguese Government concerning the Golden Visa programme. The Court rejected the Government's claim that it was a matter of statistical confidentiality and national security.

The Ministry has admitted that it has no crucial information to assess the integrity and usefulness of this scheme. Moreover, the Foreigner and Border service has admitted that it has no data on the Golden Visa programme, whose beneficiaries purchase property through their companies. It has also admitted that no impact assessments of the programme have been made and that only 213 jobs have been created under the scheme. Furthermore, the Foreigner and Border Service added that it makes no check of how the capital invested is raised.

Given that security, money laundering, tax evasion, information and transparency have been identified as areas of concern with regard to the Golden Visa programme, how does the Commission intend to pressure the Portuguese State into answering the following questions:

1. Why has it rejected 4.5% of requests made under the scheme?

2. Why does it not know how many visas have been revoked and for what reason?

3. Why does it not have key information on, for example, the type of property investment made?

Original language of question: PT
Last updated: 26 March 2020Legal notice - Privacy policy