Citizenship by Merit in Europe: How European States Recognise Exceptional Contribution

Citizenship by merit is best understood not as a single European immigration route, but as an analytical umbrella covering several forms of exceptional naturalisation.

Nationality remains primarily a matter for each European state. Within the European Union, however, nationality decisions acquire a wider constitutional significance because nationality of a Member State automatically carries Union citizenship. The broader legal framework is examined in European Citizenship Explained, which considers the relationship between national citizenship law, Union citizenship and the principal lawful routes to nationality in Europe.

Against that background, several European states retain nationality provisions under which ordinary naturalisation rules may be displaced, relaxed or supplemented where an individual has rendered exceptional services, demonstrated extraordinary achievement, made a significant contribution or where naturalisation serves an exceptional national interest.

Austria refers expressly to extraordinary achievements and the particular interest of the Republic. Malta recognises exceptional services, exceptional contribution and exceptional interest to Malta. France expressly accommodates exceptional services or exceptional interest to France. Italy recognises eminent services or an exceptional interest of the State. Portugal provides for naturalisation following relevant services to the Portuguese State or national community. Greece provides for honorary naturalisation following exceptional services or where an exceptional interest of the country would be served.

Spain and Poland illustrate a related but conceptually different category: broad sovereign powers of exceptional naturalisation. These provisions may sometimes recognise merit, but merit is not necessarily their exclusive organising principle.

Europe therefore does not possess one doctrine called “citizenship by merit”. It possesses something more historically significant: a longstanding tradition of exceptional naturalisation through which states reserve the sovereign capacity to recognise contribution, achievement, service and national interest outside ordinary residence-based rules.

That distinction has become more important since the Court of Justice of the European Union's judgment of 29 April 2025 in Commission v Malta, Case C-181/23. The Court rejected an institutionalised procedure in which naturalisation arose in exchange for predetermined payments or investments. It characterised the objectionable element as the transactional nature and resulting “commercialisation” of Member State nationality and Union citizenship.

The judgment did not abolish discretion, contribution or exceptional naturalisation. Indeed, when the laws of several Member States are examined comparatively, exceptional citizenship powers remain deeply embedded in European nationality law.

The more interesting post-Commission v Malta question is therefore no longer whether states may recognise exceptional people. It is what makes that recognition legally distinguishable from a transaction.

The phrase “citizenship by merit” should be used with precision.

There is no EU directive, regulation or common nationality code defining citizenship by merit. Nor do all national laws use the term. A comparative analysis instead reveals three broad legal models.

Express Merit and Extraordinary Achievement

At the clearest end of the spectrum are laws that expressly evaluate extraordinary achievement, exceptional contribution or comparable forms of merit against the interests of the state.

Austria and Malta provide the strongest contemporary examples examined here.

The essential feature is not simply that an applicant may be talented or wealthy. The legal question is whether the individual's achievements, contribution or prospective value are sufficiently exceptional to justify a special exercise of the state's naturalisation power.

Exceptional Service and National Interest

A second group of states frames exceptional naturalisation around services rendered to the country or community, or around an exceptional national interest.

France, Italy, Portugal and Greece illustrate variations of this approach.

These provisions often pre-date contemporary investment migration debates by decades. Their existence is important because it demonstrates that European states have historically distinguished between ordinary naturalisation and exceptional recognition of individuals whose contribution or importance warrants different treatment.

Exceptional Sovereign Discretion

A third category consists of wider constitutional or governmental powers to grant nationality in exceptional circumstances.

Spain's carta de naturaleza and the Polish President's constitutional power to grant citizenship are examples. Such powers can encompass meritorious cases, but their legal scope is broader than citizenship by merit.

The distinction matters. Describing every exceptional citizenship grant as “citizenship by merit” would confuse a useful comparative concept with the precise wording of national law.

“Citizenship by merit begins with the individual and the public value of their contribution. It does not begin with a predetermined price or entitlement.”
Dr. Jean-Philippe Chetcuti
Managing Partner

The diversity of European nationality law becomes particularly clear when the principal statutory models are examined side by side.

Austria: Extraordinary Achievement

Austria provides one of Europe's clearest statutory expressions of merit-based naturalisation.

Under section 10(6) of the Austrian Citizenship Act 1985, certain ordinary naturalisation requirements cease to apply where the Federal Government confirms that granting citizenship is in the particular interest of the Republic because of the foreign national's extraordinary achievements already rendered and expected in the future.

The statutory formulation is significant for several reasons.

First, the test is expressly exceptional. Ordinary professional competence or commercial success should not be confused with the statutory threshold of extraordinary achievement.

Secondly, the law is both retrospective and prospective. It is concerned not only with what the individual has already achieved, but also with achievements expected in future. This gives the assessment a strategic national-interest dimension rather than treating citizenship purely as a retrospective honour.

Thirdly, the Federal Government must determine that naturalisation is in the particular interest of Austria. Merit and national interest therefore operate together.

A related Austrian provision expressly identifies extraordinary achievements in scientific, economic, artistic or sporting fields in the context of accelerated naturalisation following residence. The statutory scheme consequently demonstrates that Austria treats exceptional achievement as an established legal concept within nationality law rather than as an immigration-marketing category.

Austria is therefore particularly important in comparative European analysis because it illustrates the central ingredients of a genuine merit model: extraordinary achievement, individual assessment, prospective contribution and a governmental determination of national interest.

Malta: Contribution and Exceptional Interest

Malta's contemporary framework is structurally different but equally explicit.

Following legislative amendments adopted in July 2025, the Granting of Citizenship by Naturalisation on the basis of Merit Regulations, Subsidiary Legislation 188.06, regulate naturalisation under article 10(9) of the Maltese Citizenship Act.

The regulations provide that a person may qualify where that person renders an exceptional service to Malta or humanity, makes an exceptional contribution to Malta or humanity, or is of exceptional interest to Malta.

Official guidance identifies relevant areas including science and research, technology, sport, entrepreneurship including job creation, culture and the arts, and philanthropy. Importantly, the Government's guidance expressly describes the grant as discretionary and case-specific.

Malta consequently adopts a potentially wider conception of merit than models focused exclusively on honours or historic achievement. Its legislation can recognise services already rendered, contribution, exceptional interest and prospective value.

The inclusion of contribution to humanity, rather than solely Malta, is particularly noteworthy. It enables the legal framework to consider achievement whose importance transcends territorial boundaries, while retaining the sovereign decision as to whether the individual should be naturalised by Malta.

The contemporary Maltese framework must also be read in its post-2025 constitutional context. Following the Court's judgment in Commission v Malta, the Government removed the former investment-linked framework and stated that the amendments strengthened Malta's existing merit-based citizenship provisions.

This transition is analysed more fully in Malta, Contributive Belonging and the Reordering of European Citizenship Law. That publication develops the Doctrine of Contributive Belonging as a public-law framework through which citizenship can be understood as reciprocal recognition of substantive contribution and belonging rather than transactional entitlement.

Malta is therefore not simply another example of exceptional naturalisation. Its significance lies in attempting to articulate, in contemporary legislation and administrative structure, the distinction between contribution and transaction.

France: Exceptional Services and Talent

French nationality law provides further evidence that exceptional naturalisation forms part of an established European legal tradition.

Article 21-19(6) of the French Civil Code permits naturalisation without the ordinary qualifying residence period for a foreign national who has rendered exceptional services to France, or where naturalisation presents an exceptional interest for France. Such a decree requires the opinion of the Conseil d'État following a reasoned report from the competent minister.

French law therefore combines two concepts familiar elsewhere in Europe: past service and exceptional national interest.

Article 21-18 provides a related but less exceptional mechanism by reducing the ordinary residence period to two years for, among others, a person whose capabilities and talents have rendered or could render important services to France, and for a foreign national demonstrating an exceptional record of integration through civic, scientific, economic, cultural or sporting activities.

France is particularly useful comparatively because the law distinguishes between important services, exceptional integration and truly exceptional services or national interest.

That graduated structure demonstrates why citizenship by merit should not be reduced to celebrity or prestige. Merit in nationality law may arise from scientific, economic, civic, cultural or sporting contribution, and the legal consequence may range from accelerated ordinary naturalisation to exemption from the ordinary residence period.

Italy: Eminent Services to the State

Italy provides a still more explicitly state-recognition-based model.

Article 9(2) of Law No. 91 of 5 February 1992 allows citizenship to be granted by Presidential Decree, after the prescribed institutional deliberations, to a foreign national who has rendered eminent services to Italy or where an exceptional interest of the State exists.

The official Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs guidance makes a particularly important procedural point: this form of naturalisation does not require the individual concerned to initiate the process. Rather, a proposal must come from entities, public personalities or associations capable of substantiating the qualities supporting the exceptional grant. The individual's consent remains necessary.

This is conceptually very different from a conventional immigration application.

The Italian model presents exceptional citizenship as recognition by the state, rather than a right which an individual activates by satisfying a standardised list of requirements.

That distinction helps identify one of the defining features of classical citizenship by merit. In its purest form, the state recognises an individual because of what that person has done, represents or can contribute. The individual is not purchasing or automatically qualifying for the recognition.

Portugal: Relevant Services

Portugal offers a useful middle position between extraordinary merit and broader public service.

Portuguese nationality law permits naturalisation of adults who have rendered or are called upon to render relevant services to the Portuguese State or to the national community.

Official Portuguese Justice Ministry guidance confirms that nationality under this basis always remains dependent upon a decision of the Minister of Justice. Applicants must provide documentary evidence establishing the relevant services relied upon.

The statutory terminology is notable because Portugal speaks of relevant services, rather than requiring the more emphatic formulation of “extraordinary achievements” or “exceptional services” found elsewhere.

This does not make the route automatic or routine. Ministerial discretion remains central. It does, however, demonstrate the breadth of the European legal tradition: states have adopted different thresholds for recognising service and contribution depending on their constitutional and nationality-law traditions.

The Portuguese provision also connects citizenship to the wider national community, rather than exclusively territorial service to the state itself. That formulation is particularly relevant in a European environment where national communities and their citizens increasingly have significant transnational dimensions.

Greece: Honorary Naturalisation

Greek law expressly uses the concept of honorary naturalisation.

Article 13 of the Greek Citizenship Code provides that a foreign national who has rendered exceptional services to Greece, or whose naturalisation may serve an exceptional interest of the country, may be naturalised by Presidential Decree following a reasoned proposal from the Minister of the Interior, subject to specified statutory safeguards.

The language is revealing.

The word “honorary” places the legal mechanism conceptually closer to state recognition than to migration procedure. At the same time, the alternative test of exceptional national interest gives the provision a prospective dimension.

Greece therefore illustrates both principal rationales for exceptional naturalisation:

• recognition of exceptional services already rendered; and
• advancement of an exceptional interest of the state.

The coexistence of these rationales appears repeatedly across European nationality systems.

Not every exceptional power to grant citizenship should be classified as a merit framework.

Spain and Poland demonstrate why the distinction matters.

Spain: Carta de Naturaleza

Spanish nationality by carta de naturaleza is discretionary and granted by Royal Decree where the Government considers that exceptional circumstances exist.

The Spanish Ministry of Justice expressly describes the mechanism as discretionary and outside the ordinary rules of general administrative procedure.

Exceptional achievement may fall within such circumstances, but the concept is wider. Exceptional humanitarian, historical or other circumstances may also justify use of the power.

It would therefore be legally imprecise to describe carta de naturaleza itself as a citizenship-by-merit framework.

It is better understood as a sovereign exceptional-naturalisation power capable of recognising merit among other exceptional circumstances.

That distinction should inform professional advice. The existence of broad governmental discretion does not mean that a predictable merit application route exists.

Poland: Presidential Grant

Poland provides an even clearer example of broad constitutional discretion.

Article 137 of the Polish Constitution provides that the President of the Republic grants Polish citizenship and gives consent for renunciation of citizenship.

Official Polish guidance distinguishes this presidential grant from recognition as a citizen through the ordinary administrative process. Applications for a presidential grant may be submitted by persons who do not possess Polish citizenship, while the President is not bound by a specified decision deadline and presidential decisions are final.

Polish official legal material goes further in characterising the constitutional power as one in which the President is not limited by prescribed substantive conditions when deciding whether to grant citizenship to a foreign national upon request.

Poland should therefore not be presented as operating a formal citizenship-by-merit route.

Its significance to the comparative analysis is different: European constitutional systems sometimes preserve a very broad sovereign power to confer nationality outside ordinary statutory naturalisation criteria.

Merit may inform the exercise of that discretion, but it does not exhaust it.

Any contemporary analysis of exceptional citizenship in the European Union must address the Court of Justice's judgment in Commission v Malta.

On 29 April 2025, the Grand Chamber held that Malta had infringed Article 20 TFEU and Article 4(3) TEU by operating an institutionalised investor citizenship framework involving a transactional naturalisation procedure in exchange for predetermined payments or investments.

The operative concern was therefore not simply that Malta exercised discretion over nationality.

Nor did the Court hold that every exceptional or accelerated naturalisation provision is inconsistent with European Union law.

The objection was to an institutionalised structure in which nationality was granted through a predetermined transactional exchange, resulting in what the Court described as the “commercialisation” of the grant of Member State nationality and, by extension, Union citizenship.

The judgment and its wider implications are examined separately in European Citizenship After Commission v Malta.

When read together with the comparative nationality laws examined above, an important point emerges.

Austria, France, Italy, Portugal, Greece, Spain and Poland retain exceptional naturalisation mechanisms of materially different kinds. Their continued existence confirms that exceptional treatment itself is not synonymous with transactional citizenship.

The legal dividing line must consequently be drawn more carefully.

At one end sits predetermined entitlement: meet a financial condition and nationality follows through an institutionalised exchange.

At the other sits individualised sovereign recognition: the state assesses the person's achievements, services, contribution, exceptional circumstances or national-interest value and determines whether citizenship should be conferred.

Between those poles sit multiple forms of accelerated, discretionary and exceptional naturalisation.

This does not mean every merit mechanism is automatically immune from EU-law scrutiny. Member States remain required to exercise their nationality competence consistently with European Union law where Union citizenship is engaged.

It does mean, however, that Commission v Malta should not be transformed into a proposition the Court never made: that nationality may only follow long physical residence or that exceptional naturalisation has ceased to be legitimate.

The comparative evidence points in the opposite direction. Exceptional naturalisation remains a persistent feature of European nationality law.

The comparative analysis also raises a broader doctrinal question: what should justify exceptional citizenship in a modern European state?

Traditional nationality law frequently relied upon familiar connecting factors such as birth, descent, marriage and residence. Modern globally mobile lives are more complex. Entrepreneurs build companies in several jurisdictions. Scientists collaborate internationally. Athletes and artists develop careers across borders. Philanthropists may generate significant public benefit in countries where they have not spent decades in physical residence.

A purely territorial understanding of belonging can therefore become too narrow, while a purely transactional understanding is too shallow.

The Doctrine of Contributive Belonging, developed in Malta, Contributive Belonging and the Reordering of European Citizenship Law, offers one possible framework for reconciling those tensions.

Contributive Belonging does not equate wealth with merit. Nor does it argue that contribution should replace all traditional forms of connection.

Its relevance lies in recognising that belonging can sometimes be evidenced through substantive reciprocal contribution: the person's activity, achievement, service or commitment creates demonstrable value for the community, while the state recognises that relationship through its public law.

The comparative European provisions examined here support elements of that proposition independently of Malta.

Austria requires extraordinary achievements and national interest. France considers exceptional services and exceptional interest. Italy refers to eminent services and exceptional state interest. Portugal recognises relevant services to the state or national community. Greece recognises exceptional services and exceptional national interest.

The common denominator is not investment.

It is public value.

This is also relevant to the way citizenship should be assessed as a long-term legal status rather than a short-term mobility convenience. The CCLEX Mobility Assets Spectrum™ treats residence and citizenship as mobility assets differentiated by durability, rights, geographic reach and intergenerational significance. From that perspective, citizenship represents a particularly durable legal relationship between individual and state.

The stronger that legal asset, the stronger the case for insisting upon a credible foundation for its acquisition.

Contribution may provide such a foundation in exceptional cases, but only where contribution is substantive, individually assessed and connected to a legitimate public or national interest.

Europe does not currently possess a harmonised doctrine of merit-based citizenship, and it is unlikely to develop one soon. Nationality remains closely connected to constitutional identity, history and state sovereignty.

Yet comparison reveals recurring principles.

Exceptionality is the first. These provisions exist precisely because ordinary naturalisation rules are not considered adequate for every case.

Individual assessment is the second. The state evaluates the person, rather than merely checking whether a predetermined financial threshold has been met.

Public or national interest is the third. Achievement acquires legal relevance because the state identifies some wider public value in recognising the individual as a citizen.

Discretion is the fourth. Exceptional citizenship is generally not a contractual entitlement. Governmental, ministerial or presidential judgment remains central.

Evidence is the fifth. Exceptional claims require credible substantiation of achievement, service, impact or prospective contribution.

The differences between jurisdictions are equally important.

Some systems concentrate on achievements already rendered. Others allow prospective contribution to be assessed. Some focus strictly on national interest. Malta additionally refers to exceptional service or contribution to humanity. Portugal recognises contribution to the wider national community. Italy's model can begin through institutional nomination rather than an ordinary applicant-led procedure. Spain and Poland retain still broader sovereign discretion.

These distinctions make a single commercialised concept of “European citizenship by merit” misleading.

A more accurate formulation is:

European states maintain a spectrum of exceptional naturalisation powers through which merit, service, contribution, public interest and sovereign discretion can justify citizenship outside ordinary pathways.

That spectrum has existed independently of citizenship by investment and continues after Commission v Malta.

Strategic Implications for Exceptional Individuals

For exceptional individuals and their advisers, the practical consequences are significant.

The correct starting point is not: “Which passport can this person obtain?”

It is: “What is genuinely exceptional about this person's record, and which state's nationality law gives that achievement legal relevance?”

A scientist with internationally significant research, an entrepreneur who has created strategically important industries or employment, a cultural figure whose work has materially contributed to national life, an athlete with exceptional sporting achievements, or a philanthropist responsible for measurable public benefit may each present a very different merit profile.

Those distinctions should shape both jurisdiction selection and evidential strategy.

Four practical principles follow.

First, wealth should never be used as a proxy for merit. Entrepreneurial achievement can plainly be relevant where a law recognises economic or entrepreneurial contribution, but the legally relevant fact is the achievement or public value produced, not merely the size of the individual's balance sheet.

Secondly, existing contribution is generally stronger than speculative contribution. Some legal systems expressly permit prospective achievements or future services to be considered, but a credible record provides a firmer basis on which to evaluate exceptionality.

Thirdly, national alignment matters. Exceptional achievement in the abstract may not satisfy a legal test requiring particular national interest. The relationship between the person's contribution and the state's economic, scientific, cultural, sporting, philanthropic or strategic priorities therefore requires careful examination.

Fourthly, discretion must remain visible throughout the analysis. Exceptional naturalisation provisions should not be presented as guaranteed programmes, standard products or automatic pathways. In many jurisdictions the defining legal characteristic is precisely that the state retains judgment as to whether the exceptional circumstances justify citizenship.

This is why serious citizenship-by-merit advice increasingly resembles strategic public-law analysis more than conventional immigration processing.

CCLEX's European citizenship lawyers advise internationally mobile individuals, families and professional advisers on nationality strategies involving citizenship by descent, residence-based naturalisation, citizenship by merit and other exceptional forms of naturalisation.

In merit-related matters, the legal analysis begins with the individual's existing record and the relevant national law rather than with assumptions about eligibility. This may include evaluating the legal character of the proposed route, identifying the evidence required to substantiate exceptional achievement or contribution, assessing national-interest alignment and coordinating citizenship planning with existing residence, family and cross-border legal circumstances.

The firm's dedicated Citizenship by Merit practice brings this analysis together across relevant jurisdictions.

About the Author: Professional Contribution and Expertise

Dr Jean-Philippe Chetcuti, Managing Partner, is a private client, tax and citizenship lawyer advising internationally mobile families, entrepreneurs and family offices on European and global citizenship, residence and cross-border private client matters. His thought leadership includes the Doctrine of Contributive Belonging, the proprietary CCLEX Mobility Assets Spectrum™, analysis of European citizenship law and lawful nationality pathways and the constitutional implications considered in European Citizenship After Commission v Malta.