Ana Rita Gil and Nuno Piçarra Opposition to acquisition after birth by adoption, filial, marriage or partnership transfer The acquisition of citizenship after birth by adoption, filial, marriage or partnership transfer is not automatic, but it is a right of those who fulfil the legal requirements. This means that state can prevent the acquisition of citizenship by taking a procedure of opposition through the Public Prosecutor. This procedure aims to prevent persons deemed ‘undesirable’ or without any link to Portugal from acquiring Portuguese citizenship. Acquisition then depends on non-opposition by the Public Prosecution Service, or on a court decision stating that opposition to the application is unfounded. According to art. 9 of the Nationality Act, opposition can only take place when there are indications that the following grounds may exist: (1) The nonexistence of an effective link to the national community;57 - this ground is not applicable in case of marriage or civil partnership when there are the couple has children with Portuguese nationality (art. 9 (2)). (2) The conviction, with a final judgment, with a penalty of imprisonment of 3 years or more;58 (3) The performance of public duties with a predominantly non-technical character or non-compulsory military service for another state. 59 (4) The existence of a danger or threat to national security or defence through his or her involvement in activities related to the practice of terrorism in accordance with its respective law. Opposition to the acquisition of Portuguese citizenship is a special legal procedure which may be initiated by the Public Prosecutor within a year of the date on which the declaration or adoption occurred. Once a year has lapsed without opposition from the Public Prosecutor, the right to opposition expires, and the acquisition becomes definite (art. 10 of the Nationality Act). Opposition to citizenship proceedings takes place in the administrative courts through a special administrative procedure (art. 60 of the Nationality Regulation). All of the public authorities are required to communicate to the Public Prosecutor any facts which might constitute one of the opposition grounds. In almost all of the cases, the opposition proceedings are intended to prevent the acquisition of Portuguese citizenship by a foreigner married to a Portuguese and are based on the grounds of the lack of integration into the national community. 57 Prior to Law 25/94 a basis for opposition was ‘the obvious lack of any real link to the national community’. The 2006 reform amended this requirement demanding an actual conviction, in order to fully respect the constitutional principle of the innocence presumption. The Centre Social Democratic-Popular Party (CDS-PP) has proposed that the acquisition procedure should be suspended during the existence of a criminal procedure in which the applicant was a suspect (Parliamentary Debates, Diary of the Assembly of the Republic 54, 2005: 2460). Nevertheless, this arrangement was not welcomed by the government, as it could potentially raise some doubts regarding the constitutional principle of the innocence presumption (Minister of the Presidency, Parliamentary Debates, Diary of the Assembly of the Republic 54, 2005: 2460). However, in the decision of 14 October 2010, the South Central Administrative Court considered that, in such cases, the decision on whether the opposition was valid should be suspended until the Criminal Court decided the criminal proceeding. 59 It was the 2006 reform which clarified that the exercise of public functions in another state should only comprise the exercise of predominantly non-technical functions. This amendment aimed to adapt the legal regime to the Portuguese judicial case-law, which adopts a restricted interpretation of the ‘exercise of public duties’. It only considers relevant the duties that imply a relationship of political trust, which might lead to grounds for doubts that the foreigner who wants to acquire Portuguese nationality will be loyal to the Portuguese state (decision by the Supreme Court of Justice of 25 February 1986). See also the recent decision of the South Central Administrative Court of 14 October 2010. 58 18 RSCAS/GLOBALCIT-CR 2020/1- © 2020 Author