European Commission vice president Maroš Šefčovič and Prime Minister Joseph Muscat yesterday insisted that the citizenship scheme issue had been “settled”, though both shied away from providing a definition of the residency period they had agreed upon.
Mr Šefčovič said the European Commission felt “reassured” by the recent amendments to the Individual Investor Programme, especially with the “background security checks” that will be carried out on applicants.
Successful non-EU citizens will be required to buy property worth at least €350,000 or rent at a cost of €16,000 a year for five years.
They will also have to invest €150,000 in government bonds on top of making a direct contribution of €650,000 into an investment fund.
Muscat trying to save face after being humiliated- PN
Following talks with the Commission, which expressed concern over the scheme in the wake of a strong negative vote at the European Parliament, the government also accepted to introduce a residency period of one year.
However, in their joint press conference yesterday, neither Mr Šefčovič nor Dr Muscat would specify how many days within this mandatory year applicants would be expected to stay in Malta to be considered eligible.
“This is a matter of national competence,” Mr Šefčovič said, with Dr Muscat adding there were domestic laws that regulated the issue.
Asked by Times of Malta whether he saw any discrepancy between the Prime Minister’s statement that residing in Malta for 12 months “does not mean having to physically be in Malta for 365 days”, and the text of the Commission’s statement, which spoke of “effective residency”, Mr Šefčovič said it was up to the individual country to decide and that its laws were supreme.
He added that the scheme now reflected a genuine link between the applicants and the country, and he believed the final version reflected the European Parliament’s concerns.
Dr Muscat reiterated his statement concerning the residency component, pointing out that, when he was an MEP, he did not spend a whole year in Malta but was still considered a resident.
By asking for these details, journalists were “missing the wood for the trees” and this should not be “the focus”, the Prime Minister said.
This is a matter of national competence
“The crux of the matter is the good faith in implementing this requirement,” he said, adding the Commission had “no problem” with Malta’s scheme.
Meanwhile, the Nationalist Party insisted yesterday that the government should publish the new Legal Notice on the scheme, adding that it would only take a position after this is done.
In a statement, the PN said Mr Šefčovič’s statements showed the discrepancies between what the European Commission and the Maltese government were saying on the term of residency.
“The Prime Minister is again trying to play with words to try to mislead the public. Dr Muscat is trying to save face after being humiliated for having to change the scheme for a third time,” the PN said.
It said it was unacceptable the government had not published all the details about the amendments.
Later in the press conference, Mr Šefčovič said the recent European Parliament debate triggered by Malta’s scheme had “opened the Commission’s eyes” on “quite a few similar schemes” in place in other countries and which the Commission would scrutinise in the same way it did Malta’s.
Asked to describe the relations between Malta and the European Commission following the IIP issue, Mr Šefčovič said they were “excellent”.