The Portuguese Constitutional Court on Friday declared portions of a newly enacted bill amending the country’s immigration rules unconstitutional.

In the judgment, the Constitutional Court stressed that the bill’s limitation of the right to family reunification violates Article 36 of the Portuguese Constitution, which grants the right to form a family and prohibits separating children from their parents. The bill’s restriction on individuals’ ability to appeal government decisions was also deemed to constitute an infringement of the guarantee to the law and the courts, enshrined in Article 20.

Approved by the Portuguese parliament on July 16, the bill was intended to amend the “Legal Regime for the Entry, Stay and Exit of Foreign Nationals,” vastly limiting the right of asylum seekers and other foreign nationals applying for family reunification.

The legislation included several provisions limiting the procedural and substantive rights of foreign individuals residing in Portugal. An amendment to Article 98 of the previous legislation limited the right to reunite with a Portuguese resident solely to minors, excluding family members over the age of eighteen. In addition, the bill had intended to create a two-year residency period for foreign nationals, during which foreign nationals could apply for family reunification.

Under the amended Article 101, subsection three, family members of foreign nationals would have been required to “comply with integration measures, namely related to the learning of the Portuguese language and the Portuguese constitutional principles and values, as well as the frequency of compulsory education in the case of minors.” Once an application had been submitted, the government was granted up to 16 months to decide upon the compulsory education requirement. The amendment also limited the right to appeal such a decision.

However, a considerable number of amendments, such as the limitation for work visas to “highly qualified migrants,” were untouched by the decision. As part of the government’s broader “Action Plan for Migration,” the bill was spearheaded by Prime Minister Luís Montenegro, but blocked by President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa, who referred the bill to the court amid fears of a disproportionate restriction of the principle of family reunion.

In response to the decision, Prime Minister Montenegro announced, “We will not give up our goal, even if we have to reformulate the law because of a decision of the Constitutional Court. If a provision does not fully comply with constitutional principles, most will respect this decision and find a legal solution.”

Based on the court’s ruling, President de Sousa vetoed the bill, resulting in an anticipated round of parliamentary discussion resuming in September.