Member Spotlight: EMD, Malta

In the past, third-country citizens (citizens of a country outside of the European Union) always required a valid residence permit (“Niederlassungsbewilligung”) in order to obtain a work permit and be employed in Austria. As a consequence, many skilled workers, who were citizens of third countries and resided in regions close to the Austrian border, could not work in Austria, even if no suitable workforce was available on the Austrian labour market. Vacancies regularly remained unfilled, exacerbating the shortage of skilled workers in Austria. To address this shortage of skilled workers and to provide third-country citizens residing in neighbouring countries with access to the Austrian labour market, legislative measures have now been implemented in Austria.

Effective from 1 December 2025, a new settlement permit for ‘cross-border workers’ (“Aufenthaltsberechtigung Grenzgänger”) was introduced. The settlement permit for ‘cross-border workers’ is a combined work and settlement permit for individuals who reside in a country bordering Austria. It entitles the holder to stay in Austria temporarily for the purpose of employment without establishing a residence.

In order to obtain a settlement permit for ‘cross border workers’, the (future) employee must have a long-term residence permit with unrestricted access to the labour market in a neighbouring country of Austria. Consequently, certain individuals are not eligible, such as seasonal workers or students. Furthermore, the place of prospective employment must be located in an administrative district of Austria that borders the neighboring country directly. A further prerequisite for the granting of a settlement permit for ‘cross-border workers’ is a positive assessment by the Public Employment Agency, confirming that no suitable replacement worker is available on the Austrian labour market and that the general requirements for a national work permit are met. Finally, the employee must return to his main residence in the neighbouring country at least once a week. For example, a Japanese citizen, having a permanent residence- and work permit in Slovenia may work in the Austrian border region with Slovenia, provided that the other requirements are met.

An application for a settlement permit may be submitted to the competent residence authority at the (future) place of employment by either the employer or the employee him/herself. An employment contract and a statement from the employer confirming the employee’s (future) employment with him/her must be submitted with the application. The settlement permit is usually issued for a period of 12 months and can subsequently be renewed.

The introduction of this new status facilitates the recruiting of skilled workers in border regions and enables third-country nationals residing in a neighbouring country to access the Austrian labour market. It is expected that through this legislative measure, a contribution will be made towards addressing the shortage of skilled workers.

--

For more information, contact:

Dr. Philipp Spatz, LL.M.

p.spatz@hba.at

Mag. Markus Koroschetz

m.koroschetz@hba.at

hba Rechtsanwälte GmbH

The Globalaw APAC Regional Meeting (GLAPRM) took place April 15-18, 2026, at The Capitol Kempinski Hotel Singapore.

This year’s meeting theme focused on both emerging leaders and emerging legal topics, reflecting Globalaw’s commitment to positioning the network for lasting success by fostering and developing multi-jurisdictional and cross-generational relationships.

The collaboration between senior attorneys and young lawyers across our member firms broadened the conversation, strengthened peer-to-peer connections, and provided countless opportunities to learn from professionals at all levels.

We warmly thank our event sponsors, Legora, AESIS, and MDD, for helping us create a successful, memorable meeting!

Community Impact

During the meeting, the Globalaw Foundation made a $5,000 contribution to Pro Bono SG and heard remarks from Deputy CEO Chengying Cia. The largest pro bono legal organisation in Singapore, Pro Bono SG reflects the Globalaw Foundation’s mission of expanding access to justice by serving more than 16,000 vulnerable and disadvantaged individuals and organisations in FY24/25 through legal awareness, advice and advocacy.

Business & Social Programme Highlights

Where to Next?

• EMEA Regional Meeting, Berlin

• GWI Annual Meeting, Poland

• Annual Members Meeting, Omni Barton Creek Resort & Spa, Austin, Texas | Hosted by Jackson Walker

DeBenedetti Majewski Szcześniak (DMS) is a distinguished Polish boutique law firm established in 2004 by C. David DeBenedetti, Dariusz Szcześniak, and Jarosław Majewski.

DMS was created to deliver the expertise, representation, and strategic business advisory services typical of a large firm, while providing the personalized attention and bespoke service of a boutique practice.

Rooted in trust and respect, DMS delivers comprehensive legal solutions for complex business challenges and projects demanding extensive knowledge and experience.

Business-Focused Outcomes

The firm seamlessly integrates dispute resolution and transactional advisory services, matching the caliber of international firms while ensuring greater accessibility and a more client-centric approach. DMS acts as a true business partner—responsible, precise, and fully attuned to each client’s objectives.

With a team of recognized experts and respected authorities, DMS combines deep legal expertise with practical, business-oriented solutions tailored to the needs of institutional and corporate clients.

Complex Subject Matter Experts

DMS specialises in corporate and commercial disputes, criminal and fiscal-criminal law, mergers and acquisitions and financial transactions.

The firm handles complex, multi-layered, and often high-profile matters for leading Polish and international financial institutions, insurance companies, banking and financial entities, investment funds, and companies across technology, real estate, and manufacturing sectors.

Thoughtful, Innovative Solutions

DMS is renowned for delivering thoughtful, innovative legal solutions that empower clients to strengthen their market position, achieve their goals, and effectively manage legal risk.

By integrating litigation and transactional expertise to provide legal support that truly advances business interests, DMS serves clients such as Fidera Group, Elliott Advisors (UK) Ltd, Vienna Insurance Group AG Wiener Versicherung Gruppe, Uber, JP Morgan Securities Plc., ALLIANZ Global, Palram, Heiztechnik, and Schuler Pressen GmbH.

Clients benefit from DMS’s top-tier market precision, along with direct access to partners. The firm is consistently recognized by leading legal directories, including Chambers and Partners, Forbes, The Legal 500, and IFLR1000.

A 20-Year Globalaw History

For more than 20 years, DMS’s Globalaw membership has enabled the firm to address cross-border transactions and international disputes involving Poland. Founding partner C. David DeBenedetti is the President-elect of Globalaw, and the firm plays an active role in the network’s Sports Law Taskforce. This fall, DMS will host the Globalaw Women’s Initiative Meeting in Warsaw.

DMS works closely with Globalaw member firms worldwide, including those in the U.S., on complex regulatory matters (such as SEC compliance), providing clients with coordinated, multi-jurisdictional advice. In partnership with New York member firm Olshan, DMS advised on Polish and U.S. regulatory issues for a Polish investment fund. The firm also has a strong track record of collaboration with G.J. Pelaghias LLC in Cyprus, Cohen Amir-Aslani in France and MOLITOR in Luxembourg.

For more information, visit: https://dms-legal.com/en/

The article briefly analyses possible practical implications of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, which declared tariffs imposed by the President of the U.S. in 2025 under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) unlawful and outlines the resulting refund claims for EU importers.

Shortly after taking office, the President of the U.S., based on IEEPA, issued Executive Order No. 14257, 90 Fed. Reg. 15041 (2025)¹ due to large and persistent deficits, which allegedly led to undermining of critical supply chains in the U.S.

On February 20th, 2026, the Supreme Court of the U.S. concluded in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump² with respect to tariffs based on IEEPA imposed on importers to the U.S. that “Fulfilling that role, we hold that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.”³

Based on the court’s opinion, IEEPA was designed to address extraordinary situations in national security and foreign policy by enabling economic measures such as sanctions. However, under the administration of the U.S. President, it was interpreted broadly to impose tariffs on imports⁴. The Supreme Court rejected this approach, emphasizing that tariff-setting authority belongs to Congress unless expressly delegated.

The Supreme Court of the U.S. stated that the President of the U.S. does not have the authority to unilaterally impose taxes and tariffs under IEEPA at will. On the contrary, the Supreme Court of the U.S. emphasized that to assert such extraordinary power (specifically unlimited amount, duration, and scope), the President of the U.S. must identify clear congressional authorization⁵.

The decision represents a significant development in U.S. tariffs and international trade law. The Supreme Court of the United States held that import tariffs imposed under the IEEPA lack a valid legal basis, as the statute does not authorize tariffs as a fiscal measure.

As a result, the tariffs collected under IEEPA are considered unlawful. The ruling could affect more than 300,000 importers and approximately USD 175 billion in tariffs⁶. In response, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has ceased collecting such tariffs and is addressing refund claims⁷.

Affected importers may seek refunds of tariffs paid without a legal basis. However, such claims must be actively pursued. Claimants need to identify relevant import transactions and substantiate the amounts paid, as also reflected in the underlying material.

In practice, claims are typically initiated through administrative procedures, with judicial proceedings available if necessary.

The decision has important implications for EU companies exporting to the U.S. While it creates a significant financial opportunity, successful recovery depends on timely action and proper legal strategy.

From a practical perspective, importers should assess their exposure by reviewing imports into the U.S., identifying tariffs paid, and evaluating recovery options. Given potential time limits, prompt action is advisable.

EU companies that imported goods into the U.S. during the relevant period April 2025 – February 2026 should promptly assess their position, secure the necessary documentation, and consider appropriate legal steps, including cooperation with U.S. counsel.

--

For more information, contact:

JUDr. Norbert Havrila, Partner

LEGATE

www.legate.sk

--

¹Executive Order No. 14257 of President of the U.S. (https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2025-06063.pdf)

²Ruling of the Supreme Court of the U.S. in Nos. 24–1287 and 25–250 (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdf)

³Article III (Pg. 20) of the Opinion of the Supreme Court of the U.S. in Nos. 24–1287 and 25–250;

⁴Article II.A.2  (Pg. 11 – 12) of the Opinion of the Supreme Court of the U.S. in Nos. 24–1287 and 25–250;

⁵Article III (Pg. 20) of the Opinion of the Supreme Court of the U.S. in Nos. 24–1287 and 25–250;

⁶PWM – University of Pennsylvania (https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/p/2026-02-20-supreme-court-tariff-ruling)

⁷Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) for IEEPA Refunds, April 20, 2026 Deployment (https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDHSCBP/bulletins/4126a9c?reqfrom=share)