The President of the Assembly of the Republic, Augusto Santos Silva, warned the deputies about the possible unconstitutionality of the BE bill that defends the ban on the sale of houses to non-residents in the country.
The doubts are aroused by the services of the Assembly of the Republic, which write in the admissibility note accompanying the proposal (a first step in the parliamentary bill, which is checked against the formal requirements) that by “selling houses to non-residents in Portugal , the bill could call into question the principle of equality guaranteed by Article 13 of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic and the right to property, constitutionally provided for in Article 62 of the Constitution”, which must be taken into account during the legislative process,” writes the President of the Assembly of the Republic.
The BE project stipulates the prohibition of “sale of real estate on the national territory to natural or legal persons, with their own permanent residence or headquarters abroad”. a ban with some exceptions, namely in the case of “Portuguese citizens with their own permanent residence outside Portugal”, asylum seekers or immigrants with a residence permit permanently. The prohibition on the purchase of real estate also includes “transactions of real estate in low-density areas”, as well as “foreign citizens acquiring real estate, in co-ownership, with their spouse or with a de facto partner”.
In the preamble, the BE justifies the measure with the need to “counter price increases” in housing”. “In Portugal, the fundamental right to a house has yet to be fulfilled. Over the past ten years, house prices in Portugal have increased by 80% and rents by 28%. The country’s residents are spending a ruthless percentage of their income on their homes,” the blockers write, claiming that the Troika-era PSD/CDS government has transformed Portugal “into a haven for real estate funds, golden visas, digital nomads and not -residents BE underlines that the “housing crisis is not a Portuguese peculiarity”, but blames successive governments – including PS – for the aggravation of this trend. points to the example of Canada, where the “Liberal Party government banned the sale of residential buildings to foreigners””a measure that had already been introduced in New Zealand and which will also become reality on the islands of Ibiza, Mallorca and Menorca”.
“manifestly unconstitutional”
For Jorge Bacelar Gouveia, the ban on the purchase of real estate by non-residents is “manifestly unconstitutional”, violation of the “principles of equality, proportionality, private property and economic activity”. “There is a problem of equality, with negative discrimination, depending on nationality. And a problem with the right to property and even economic initiative,” says the constitutionalist, specifying that “it is not impossible to take measures that limit the right to property of the people, but not with this seriousness”. Jorge Bacelar Gouveia also argues that the ban cannot under any circumstances apply to citizens of the European Union, insofar as European law imposes “total freedom of movement of persons and goods”: “From the point of view of European law, this restriction is is inconceivable, it would constitute a legal obstacle to the free movement of goods and services within the European Community, it is not possible”.
Blocking: the right to property “is not absolute”
For the BE there is no doubt about the constitutionality of the proposal. “Our understanding is that there is no violation of constitutional principles,” an official party source tells DN, emphasizing that the right to property is enshrined in the Fundamental Law “it is not an absolute right” and that “other countries have already adopted regimes very similar to those now proposed.
The same applies to any discrimination against non-residents. “None of these rights benefits from a guarantee in absolute or unlimited terms, which in a situation of conflict of rights imposes a balancing of the constitutional values involved,” the party argues. And in weight with the “right to adequate housing”, which is also provided for in the constitutionthe BE has no doubt that the latter must prevail.
“What’s the Impact?”
With a long career related to housing, Helena Roseta also raises many doubts about the applicability of this measure to citizens of the European Union. But that is not the main point of criticism of the former PS deputy, face of the Basic Housing Act, for whom this project is intended. “a simple statement of intent that is not sufficiently substantiated”.
For Helena Roseta, the proposal is “blind to the realities of the area” and “confusing in application” by simultaneously referring to the concepts of high/low density areas and “urban pressure zones”, which have a very different scope. And it remains to be seen what consequences such a measure will have: “What is the impact? Research must be carried out into the consequences of this”. “In addition to potential problems of constitutionality and even violation of the rights of European citizens, such blanket bans risk causing far greater harm than the intended benefits”concludes.
Source: DN
