Offices
+36 70 421 32 63

Updated: June 2026

Case study · Portugal · Residence permit

How a Court Claim Accelerated a Portuguese Golden Visa Case Stalled for 14 Months

When a case stalls in government bureaucracy amid agency reform, patience alone is ineffective—a legal instrument that compels the authority to meet its own deadlines is required. Vladimir's Portuguese Golden Visa case was stalled for over 14 months due to the SEF-to-AIMA transformation, while local counsel merely offered excuses. We explain step-by-step how an administrative court claim obligated the authority to resolve the case within 30 days.

Anna KovalevskayaAnna KovalevskayaHead of Legal, BRIDGESReading time8 min readVerificationReviewed by an expert

This case is based on a real matter. The name and certain identifying details have been changed to protect confidentiality.

BRIDGES client story - How a Court Claim Accelerated a Portuguese Golden Visa Case Stalled for 14 Months
Contents

Case at a glance

Situation, solution and outcome in seven lines

Client
Vladimir, approximately 48 years old, commercial sector, Moscow-based; family of 3
Situation
Golden Visa case stalled for over 14 months
Root Cause
Administrative reform: dissolution of SEF and transfer of functions to AIMA
Program
Portugal, Golden Visa (Residence Permit via investment fund, pathway to EU citizenship)
Problem
Local counsel inactive, case at standstill
Solution
Administrative court claim (Intimação) for unlawful inaction
Outcome
Court compelled review; biometric appointment scheduled within 30 days

Client story

Client's Background

Where they started

Vladimir did everything correctly: invested in a qualifying fund, applied for the Portuguese Golden Visa, and waited. His documents and investment were in order—the problem was not his. His case simply stalled amid a major reform: the SEF immigration service was dissolved and its functions transferred to the new AIMA agency, and in this transition, processing deadlines slipped for thousands of applicants.

Why the standard route did not work

Over 14 months passed—and silence. Worst of all, the local attorneys handling the case merely repeated: "reform, AIMA is overwhelmed, everyone is waiting, nothing can be done." This stance condemned Vladimir to indefinite waiting, and his family's plans kept falling apart.

What BRIDGES had to solve

The key insight was that the government authority has its own statutory deadlines that it is obligated to meet, and Portuguese law provides applicants with a specific legal instrument against their violation. This is Intimação—an administrative court claim (compulsion) against the unlawful inaction of the authority. Reform does not nullify the obligation to review cases within prescribed timeframes.

Why a standard answer would not do

Vladimir turned to BRIDGES when he realized that passive waiting was getting him nowhere. The task was not to "politely expedite," but to deploy a legal instrument: through administrative court, to compel AIMA to review the stalled case based on breach of statutory deadlines.

My case had been stuck for 14 months. Through partners Irena filed a claim with the administrative court, and 30 days later I had my biometrics.

Vladimir, 48 · Vladimir, Commercial SectorThe name and certain identifying details have been changed to protect confidentiality.

What Was at Risk

What Was at Risk

When a case stalls amid agency reform, passive waiting yields nothing, and local counsel often merely offers excuses. However, the authority has statutory deadlines it must meet, and the law provides a tool against inaction—an administrative court claim. Reform does not nullify the obligation to process cases within prescribed timeframes.

Golden Visa case stalled for over 14 months;

  1. 01SEF-to-AIMA reform delayed thousands of applications;
  2. 02Local counsel inactive—"everyone is waiting";
  3. 03Passive waiting could extend for months further;
  4. 04Breach of statutory deadlines went unaddressed.

The logic of the solution

How the matter progressed: from checks to result

The chart is built from the facts of this matter and shows the logic of the work without decorative or unverified data.

  1. 01
    Stage 1

    Rejected the position of "we must wait for the reform". Local lawyers convinced Vladimir that during the reform there is only waiting. We immediately disagreed: inaction beyond the established timeframe is a violation, not a norm, and the reform does not justify it. This changed the strategy from passive to active and lawful.

  2. 02
    Stage 2

    Documented violation of established timeframes. For the court to compel the authority, you must rely on fact: we established that the case exceeded the timeframe that AIMA is obliged to observe. The difficulty was translating the vague "stuck due to reform" into the precise "specific review timeframes violated".

  3. 03
    Stage 3

    Prepared a judicial claim (Intimação). The key step: we filed an Intimação - a mandate to the administrative court against the unlawful inaction of the authority. This is not a complaint to the agency itself, but an application to the court, which stands above it and can compel it to act.

  4. 04
    Stage 4

    Filed the claim with the administrative court. We filed the Intimação with the administrative court, outlining AIMA's inaction and violation of timeframes. The court is an instance that the authority cannot ignore, unlike informal requests from applicants themselves.

  5. 05
    Stage 5

    Supported the claim with an impeccable case file. We ensured that Vladimir's case itself was in order - investment in a licensed fund, documents - so the authority had no grounds for further delays on the merits. The legal leverage works when there is nothing else to object to.

Takeaway. Conclusion: the authority has established timeframes, and the reform does not cancel them. When a case stalls, a legal instrument helps - Intimação to the administrative court, which compels the authority to review the case within a shortened timeframe.

How we solved the problem

How we solved the problem

The work was split into verifiable stages so that every conclusion rested on documents.

  1. 01

    Rejected the position of "we must wait for the reform"

    Local lawyers convinced Vladimir that during the reform there is only waiting. We immediately disagreed: inaction beyond the established timeframe is a violation, not a norm, and the reform does not justify it. This changed the strategy from passive to active and lawful.

  2. 02

    Documented violation of established timeframes

    For the court to compel the authority, you must rely on fact: we established that the case exceeded the timeframe that AIMA is obliged to observe. The difficulty was translating the vague "stuck due to reform" into the precise "specific review timeframes violated".

  3. 03

    Prepared a judicial claim (Intimação)

    The key step: we filed an Intimação - a mandate to the administrative court against the unlawful inaction of the authority. This is not a complaint to the agency itself, but an application to the court, which stands above it and can compel it to act.

  4. 04

    Filed the claim with the administrative court

    We filed the Intimação with the administrative court, outlining AIMA's inaction and violation of timeframes. The court is an instance that the authority cannot ignore, unlike informal requests from applicants themselves.

  5. 05

    Supported the claim with an impeccable case file

    We ensured that Vladimir's case itself was in order - investment in a licensed fund, documents - so the authority had no grounds for further delays on the merits. The legal leverage works when there is nothing else to object to.

  6. 06

    Achieved case review within 30 days

    The court ordered AIMA to review the stalled case, and Vladimir was scheduled for biometrics within 30 days instead of endless waiting. The family moved towards status - not through patience, but through a legal instrument.

How the work went

From first contact to the result

  1. 01Rejected the position of "we must wait for the reform"
  2. 02Documented violation of established timeframes
  3. 03Prepared a judicial claim (Intimação)
  4. 04Filed the claim with the administrative court
  5. 05Supported the claim with an impeccable case file
  6. 06Achieved case review within 30 days

The sequence and timing reflect this specific case and depend on how complete the documents are and on the decisions of the competent authorities.

Expert comment

Waiting while a case drowns in state bureaucracy is the worst strategy, and Portugal's SEF to AIMA reform created mountains of such stalled cases. Vladimir's case had been pending for over 14 months, and local lawyers insist: reform, AIMA is overloaded, wait. But I proceed from law: the authority has established timeframes that it is OBLIGED to observe, and the reform does not cancel them. And there is a specific instrument against inaction - Intimação, a judicial claim to the administrative court. This is not a complaint to the agency itself, but an application to the court above it. I documented the violation of timeframes, filed an Intimação, and the court ordered AIMA to review the case - biometrics were scheduled within 30 days. The case file itself must be impeccable, otherwise they will object on the merits. The system can be legally forced to comply with its own rules, even in the midst of reform.

Anna Kovalevskaya, Head of Legal, BRIDGESAnna KovalevskayaHead of Legal, BRIDGES

Outcome

What the client received

What was required
How we did it · Result
Move a stalled case
Legal instrument instead of waiting · Court ordered the authority
Base it on fact
Documentation of timeframe violations · Clear grounds
Compel the authority
Intimação to the administrative court · Obligation to review
Achieve progress
Vetted case file + claim · Biometrics within 30 days
Achieve progress
Vetted case file + claim · Biometrics within 30 days

What happened: a Golden Visa case stalled for over 14 months due to the SEF to AIMA reform, and local lawyers took no action. What we did: rejected the position of "we must wait for the reform"; documented violation of established timeframes; prepared a judicial claim Intimação; filed it with the administrative court against the authority's inaction; supported it with a thoroughly vetted case file. What the client received: the court ordered AIMA to review the case, biometrics within 30 days.

Practical takeaway

What matters in a similar situation

  • Conclusion: the authority has established timeframes, and the reform does not cancel them. When a case stalls, a legal instrument helps - Intimação to the administrative court, which compels the authority to review the case within a shortened timeframe.
  • Vladimir moved a case that had been stalled for over a year, not through patience, but through judicial compulsion - the court ordered AIMA to act, and biometrics were scheduled within a month.
  • A court claim over the migration service’s inaction is a lawful way to compel the authority to review the application. We will check the status of your case.

FAQ

Questions people ask in a similar situation

01What to do if a Portuguese Golden Visa case is stalled?

Do not wait passively. The authority has established timeframes, and the reform does not cancel them. Against inaction, a judicial claim Intimação is used - a mandate to the administrative court to review the case.

02What is an Intimação?

This is an administrative claim (mandamus) filed with an administrative court against unlawful inaction by a state authority. Unlike a complaint submitted directly to the agency, it is directed to the court, which stands above the authority and can compel it to act.

03Does the SEF reform at AIMA justify the delay?

No. The reform does not cancel the obligation to review cases within the statutory timeframe. A case that has exceeded the deadline can be legally moved forward through court without violating any rules.

04Why do local attorneys often remain inactive?

Many adopt a passive position of "wait and see during the reform." However, this does not solve the problem. It is more effective to use the judicial instrument against inaction rather than wait for months.

05Is it necessary for the case itself to be in order?

Yes, absolutely. The judicial leverage on deadlines works when the case itself cannot be faulted on the merits. Therefore, in parallel, the case must be impeccable—investment in a licensed fund, documents.

06Which documents were key in this case?

Rejected the position of "we must wait for the reform". Local lawyers convinced Vladimir that during the reform there is only waiting. We immediately disagreed: inaction beyond the established timeframe is a violation, not a norm, and the reform does not justify it. This changed the strategy from passive to active and lawful. Documented violation of established timeframes. For the court to compel the authority, you must rely on fact: we established that the case exceeded the timeframe that AIMA is obliged to observe. The difficulty was translating the vague "stuck due to reform" into the precise "specific review timeframes violated".

07Why did the standard route not suit the client?

Over 14 months passed—and silence. Worst of all, the local attorneys handling the case merely repeated: "reform, AIMA is overwhelmed, everyone is waiting, nothing can be done." This stance condemned Vladimir to indefinite waiting, and his family's plans kept falling apart.

08What risk had to be closed before filing?

When a case stalls amid agency reform, passive waiting yields nothing, and local counsel often merely offers excuses. However, the authority has statutory deadlines it must meet, and the law provides a tool against inaction—an administrative court claim. Reform does not nullify the obligation to process cases within prescribed timeframes. Golden Visa case stalled for over 14 months;

About the author

Anna Kovalevskaya

Author: Anna Kovalevskaya

Head of Legal, BRIDGES

I have worked with citizenship and residency matters in European countries for 12 years. Programme requirements and application practices change, so I assess each matter against the current rules, the applicant's immigration history, family composition and the documents supporting the legal basis for the application.

I lead matters from the preliminary assessment through to the grant of status. In complex situations, I identify the circumstances that may affect the review, establish the legal logic of the application and oversee the consistency of the supporting documents at every stage.

During the consultation, you will receive an assessment of the available legal grounds, a clear understanding of the chosen route and a list of issues that should be resolved before filing. Once the engagement begins, I oversee the application and the key decisions of the BRIDGES team.

Prepared on the basis of BRIDGES practice and reviewed by a subject-matter expert.

Discuss your situation with Anna

We will review your situation and propose a solution

Describe your task in a few words. We will study your situation, assess the legal and practical options and propose the next step based on your goals, documents and country.

Confidential · no obligations · answered by the relevant specialist

Or message us on WhatsApp or Telegram

Anna KovalevskayaHead of Legal, BRIDGES
Anna Kovalevskaya, Head of Legal, BRIDGES

Names and certain details have been changed to protect client confidentiality. The result described reflects one specific situation and is neither a public offer nor a guarantee of a similar outcome. Programme terms are stated as of 2026 and may change - please confirm current parameters with a BRIDGES consultant.