Stefan Kraus, Chief Operating O!cer at Henley & Partners, calls on European policymakers to rethink and reinvigorate the continent’s golden visa programmes — turning them into strategic engines for attracting vital private capital and talent
Europe faces a pivotal moment: adapt its approach to investment migration or risk falling behind as other regions woo global investors with bold, forward-looking residence programmes.
The European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) recent ruling against Malta’s citizenship programme may have triggered renewed focus on national citizenship by investment policies, but it has done nothing to halt the surging global demand for alternative residence and citizenship solutions. Driven by persistent geopolitical uncertainty, rising fiscal pressures in key markets, and a sharpened focus on legacy planning and family security, interest among high-net-worth individuals is growing rapidly. If strategically addressed, this could be Europe’s golden opportunity to attract a new wave of affluent investors, especially those in the USA.
The ECJ’s decision declared that Malta’s citizenship by naturalisation offering constitutes a “commercialisation” of EU citizenship, ruling it incompatible with EU law. The judgment is surprising both in its conclusion and in its complete disregard for the carefully reasoned opinion of the Court’s own Advocate General, who had advised that the European Commission had no case. Instead, the ruling leans on cryptic notions of and “mutual trust” among member states.
This points to more than a legal misstep. Rather, it reveals a concerning shift in the culture of European governance, away from the rule of law and legal certainty, and towards politicisation and moral posturing. Malta’s programme has now become a political symbol rather than a legal question, which risks undermining the EU’s position in a fast-changing world.
It is important to clarify that this ruling affects only Malta’s citizenship pathway. Europe’s residence by investment programmes — so-called “golden visas” — remain lawful and operational in countries such as Greece, Italy, Latvia, and Portugal as well as Malta. These programmes are not about instant access to citizenship; naturalisation is preceded by long-term investment and residence time.
These investment migration programmes have proven their worth. They have attracted billions in foreign direct investment, supported public infrastructure, and helped fund public benefit programmes and innovation ecosystems. And with the ECJ ruling sending a signal that direct investor citizenship may now be off the table within the EU, strategic and specialised residence and citizenship planning advice will be in demand even more.
In response to the EU’s increasingly insular approach, a growing number of globally minded investors are exploring hybrid strategies, such as combining EU residence with citizenship in third countries. The future of investment migration increasingly lies in such multi-layered, combinational strategies. Today’s wealthy individuals and families are engaging in geopolitical arbitrage, deliberately acquiring multiple residence and citizenship options to hedge against jurisdictional risks and capitalise on variations in legal systems, economic frameworks, political stability, and social conditions across borders. This enables them to optimise their mobility and security as well as their financial and lifestyle outcomes.
Investment migration offers a means to transcend the constraints of single-country exposure. While one alternative residence or citizenship can provide significant strategic value, ultra-high-net-worth investors are increasingly assembling diversified portfolios of complementary options. These integrated solutions allow their families to live, work, and invest across multiple jurisdictions, effectively buffering against global volatility and unlocking greater resilience, opportunity, and return.
Furthermore, we are witnessing a significant new trend: in increasing numbers, wealthy American investors are actively seeking greater flexibility and strategic security, reflecting their evolving perspectives. Americans currently make up over 30% of our clientele.
For most, investment migration is not about immediate relocation but rather a sophisticated form of contingency planning — a strategic ‘Plan B’ that provides peace of mind and optionality should circumstances shift. The primary drivers include diversifying geopolitical exposure, enhancing global mobility, enabling international business expansion, and facilitating access to education, healthcare, and cross-border legacy planning. These individuals — often entrepreneurs, investors, and thought leaders — are precisely the kind of globally connected talent Europe claims to value. If the continent can position itself as a compelling component of these investors’ broader international strategies, it stands to gain their insight, networks, and long-term engagement along with their capital.
Meanwhile, other regions are not standing still. The UAE, Singapore, Hong Kong (SAR China), Canada, and New Zealand, for example, and even the USA itself are refining and expanding their own investment migration programmes. They are proactively courting the world’s wealthiest and most talented with residence pathways tied to innovation, business formation, and strategic investment.
These countries recognise that the true value of investment migration lies in drawing in dynamic innovators, business leaders, and global citizens along with their ideas, investment, and ambition. Europe, by contrast, seems to be retreating behind its own anxieties.
Ironically, the ECJ ruling — a political statement to protect the sanctity of EU citizenship — may end up making Europe less competitive in the very arena where it could lead. And unless Europe’s leaders act quickly and decisively, the continent risks becoming a follower in a global movement it once helped to pioneer.
At the same time, it is worth reflecting on the core values that underpin the European project — such as freedom, the rule of law, human rights, and equality — and considering whether recent judicial developments are consistent with those principles. While regulatory scrutiny is essential, care must be taken to avoid inadvertently closing off legitimate avenues for international engagement and investment.
The ECJ may have ruled against Malta’s specific citizenship programme, but the judgment need not be the end of Europe’s investment migration story. In fact, it could be the start of a new chapter where the continent repositions itself as a destination of choice for talented and mobile global citizens, including a growing cohort of high-net-worth Americans seeking to establish ties.
Golden visas are evolving, expanding, and — in the post-Malta context — becoming even more attractive. If Europe can seize this moment, it has the chance in the coming years not just to stay relevant in a changing world, but to lead it.
Further information
Produced with support from Stefan Kraus, FIMC, the Chief Operating Officer and a member of the Executive Committee at Henley & Partners, where he advises sovereign states on investment migration. For more information, visit www.henleyglobal.com.
