Report on Citizenship Law: Portugal From 1994, the applicants had to provide proof that they had an effective link to the Portuguese community by documentary evidence, by testimony or by other legally permitted means (art. 22(1)(a) of the former Nationality Regulation). The applicant had to prove a feeling of belonging to the Portuguese community, demonstrated by real efforts, such as knowledge of the Portuguese language and local habits, friendships with Portuguese, residence in Portugal, social habits, economic or professional integration, and interest in the country’s history or present.60 These were just some of the criteria used by the courts to prove a link with the Portuguese community, although there was no fixed formula for such determination.61 The lack of an objective legal framework allowing for proof of a person’s link to the national community was a source of legal uncertainty which was incompatible with the principle of preserving family unity in matters of citizenship. If the applicant failed to prove his or her link to the Portuguese community, then the opposition procedure would proceed. In 2006 the reform amended the opposition mechanism. Currently, it is the Public Prosecutor who must prove the case against the applicant.62 This will certainly encourage a more restrained use of the opposition mechanism (Ramos 2007: 213). Nevertheless, the Nationality Regulation stipulates that those who require the acquisition of citizenship shall declare the existence of their effective link to the Portuguese community (art. 57(1) of the Nationality Regulation). This does not mean that they have to prove it. The burden of proof relies on the Public Prosecutor, that must show the nonexistence of the effective ties to the Portuguese community. Despite this reform, the opposition mechanism is still an obstacle to the acquisition of citizenship. This is hard to understand when the principle of the family unity is considered. Such a mechanism does not apply to naturalisation procedures, which represent a new balance between the status familiae and the legal residence in the territory, while favouring the latter (Ramos 2007: 232). Nevertheless, in a decision of 13 November 2008, the South Central Administrative Court stressed that the relevant aspect for assessing an effective link to the Portuguese community should be the existence of family ties.63 The court adopted a reasoning which took into consideration the importance of the principle of family unity. It then verified that if the facts argued by the Public Prosecutor were serious enough they could override this principle.64 60 See, amongst many others, the decision by the Lisbon Court of Appeal of 17 October 2002 and the decision by the Supreme Court of Justice of 11 February 2004. 61 Sometimes it was sufficient for the applicant to have Portuguese children and to demonstrate that they wanted to learn Portuguese, without a demand for proof of an actual knowledge of the Portuguese language or residence in Portugal (In this sense, the decision by the Lisbon Court of Appeal dated 16 October 2003). On other occasions, case law has adopted a restrictive approach, which does not consider sufficient the facts that the foreigner is married to a Portuguese citizen, has Portuguese children, lives and works in Portugal, speaks Portuguese, has knowledge of Portuguese history, etc. Instead there was a demand for proof of a feeling of psychological and sociological belonging to the national community (See the decisions by the Lisbon Court of Appeal of 2 February 1999 and 17 December 1998), or a demonstration that the person in question participates in Portuguese culture. 62 The Centre Social Democratic-Popular Party (CDS-PP) has strongly opposed this change. It argued that it would be impossible for the state to establish such proof, and that it should be the applicant who proves his or her status in the Portuguese community (Parliamentary Debates, Diary of the Assembly of the Republic 54, 2005: 2460). 63 Decision of 13 November 2008. 64 In the case concerned, the exercise of public functions in China was not considered enough to preclude the family unity principle. RSCAS/GLOBALCIT-CR 2020/1 - © 2020 Author 19