The government will not confirm the minimum number of days that IIP (citizenship) applicants actually have to spend in Malta to be considered as residents and, therefore, to become eligible for Malta’s Individual Investor Programme.
Sources close to the EC yesterday told this paper that the talks held in Brussels on Wednesday on the newly introduced residency clause were based on the international taxation law model that stipulates that a person has to live in a country for at least six months to be considered a resident.
And when he was interviewed on TVM news on Wednesday evening after announcing the third round of amendments to the IIP, Prime Minister Joseph Muscat said that Maltese law on residency will be followed. But the Prime Minister was somewhat vague in his description of the residency requirement, saying that IIP applicants “will not have to spend 365 days in Malta prior to applying but this did not mean that they would not set foot on Malta.”
Next to speak on the residence clause was Justice Parliamentary Secretary Owen Bonnici, who was quizzed on the subject on TVM’s breakfast show yesterday. Dr Bonnici said that the amendments to the Legal Notice would be published soon. He insisted that during the Brussels meeting, the government and the commission agreed to use the definition of residency as defined in Maltese law. “We have to use the definition listed in Paragraph 10 of the Citizenship Act.”
This paragraph, however, is quite vague and actually refers to persons who are granted citizenship after living in Malta for at least five years. The law says that “in order to be granted a certificate of naturalisation as a citizen of Malta an applicant has to satisfy the Minister that he has resided in Malta throughout the period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of application and that, during the six years immediately preceding the said period of 12 months, he has resided in Malta for periods amounting in the aggregate to not less than four years”. Dr Bonnici was also quite vague in his description, and at one point said that residency is “a very volatile issue.”
Then, during a news conference at Castille yesterday afternoon, Dr Muscat was again asked about the actual minimum residency requirement but again failed to give a clear answer. While reiterating that a one year residency requirement did not mean that applicants had to spend 365 years in Malta Dr Muscat said: “"I do not blame you journalists for asking these questions, but in my opinion you are missing the wood for the trees. The crux of the matter is the good faith in the implementation of this requirement," he said, adding that there was case law which established the definition of residence.”
Six month period was never residency requirement
In a statement on Wednesday evening Commissioner Viviane Reding said that “no certificate of naturalisation will be issued unless the applicant provides proof that he/she has resided in Malta for a period of at least 12 months immediately preceding the day of issuing of the certificate of naturalisation.”
Dr Muscat said that this meant that the minimum six month residency requirement was raised to a year. But the six month period mentioned by the Prime Minister was never a residency requirement. It was in fact the minimum period of time for an application to be processed by Henley and the government. Journalists had always been told that applications would be processed within six months to two years.
On his part, PN Leader Simon Busuttil claimed that the Prime Minister was contradicting Ms Reding by saying that applicants would not have to physically reside in Malta for a whole year. Dr Busuttil said that Ms Reding’s reference to “effective residency” seemed to imply one thing but the Prime Minister was saying something else entirely. It now seems that Ms Reding and Dr Muscat were speaking on the same lines, basing their understanding of the residency requirement as defined by Maltese and international law. But then again, it is not clear whether the government will actually be following this model.