FE1 Exam Thread (Read 1st post!) NOTICE: YOU MAY SWAP EXAM GRIDS

user115

Does anyone have cases for the ordinary legislative process in EU? I've cases from special under consultation process but none under ordinary process that's used for most proposals

user115

Anyone who sat EU before do you get good marks in institution Q if you just pretty much go through the relevant treaty provisions? Or should you know a bit more, my notes mostly just focus on them with some other commentary but it's very brief

sapphire309

user115 wrote: »

Anyone who sat EU before do you get good marks in institution Q if you just pretty much go through the relevant treaty provisions? Or should you know a bit more, my notes mostly just focus on them with some other commentary but it's very brief

I haven't sat EU but I'm hoping it's kind of like a Q on the President in Constitutional, wherein as long as you include all the relevant provisions and your answer is well structured and coherent you can manage a pass fairly easily!

sapphire309

Is anybody else finding it really difficult in Judicial Review to remember if the case was against the Commission or against the Council? I keep getting them mixed up

user115

sapphire309 wrote: »

Is anybody else finding it really difficult in Judicial Review to remember if the case was against the Commission or against the Council? I keep getting them mixed up

I must go over JR yet!! I reckon if facts of case are clear then you won't be docked marks for that, for all my cases across EU I'm just going on the main party to the dispute like the individual whether they are applicant or respondent and v short summary of main facts so case is identifiable if I can't remember

Natalie_06

sapphire309 wrote: »

Is anybody else finding it really difficult in Judicial Review to remember if the case was against the Commission or against the Council? I keep getting them mixed up

Does it make any difference if it is v the council/ commission ? :O

sapphire309

Is anybody covering freedom of establishment, services or capital?

jus_me

sapphire309 wrote: »

Is anybody covering freedom of establishment, services or capital?

I’m doing establishment

kasey0123

sapphire309 wrote: »

Is anybody covering freedom of establishment, services or capital?

Just services and workers

Pyggg

Am I right in saying that if someone has registered as a job seeker, they are a "worker" but if they are looking for work but have not actually registered as a job seeker they are not a worker therefore not protected under Art 45?

jus_me

What article number covers judicial review ??

sapphire309

jus_me wrote: »

What article number covers judicial review ??

263 TFEU

jus_me

sapphire309 wrote: »

263 TFEU

Thank you !!

sapphire309

Pyggg wrote: »

Am I right in saying that if someone has registered as a job seeker, they are a "worker" but if they are looking for work but have not actually registered as a job seeker they are not a worker therefore not protected under Art 45?

Can I ask what the authority for that is? I don't have it anywhere in my notes

cup of tea

Similar q....if you are classed as a job seeker are you entitled to social assistance/grant as the same way as a worker is?

madonna123

I really felt Contract today was a nightmare.
I don't think I've had an exam like that since my 4th Class spelling test..... I got 'banana' wrong

I felt like a complete tool, in. 4th class and today

sapphire309

Another stupid question - is it sufficient to abbreviate Member States to M.S. in the exam, or no?

lawless11

sapphire309 wrote: »

Another stupid question - is it sufficient to abbreviate Member States to M.S. in the exam, or no?

Once you've introduced the abbreviation once, you're fine (e.g. your first Member States (M.S), then continue with M.S...).

Leraf

madonna123 wrote: »

I really felt Contract today was a nightmare.
I don't think I've had an exam like that since my 4th Class spelling test..... I got 'banana' wrong

I felt like a complete tool, in. 4th class and today

Thank you for echoing how I feel. It was silent on here I thought it was just me

sapphire309

FMG

Am I correct in saying that Article 36 applies only to distinctly applicable measures. If you have an indistinctly applicable measure, it could be justified by mandatory requirements (however the Court may have regard to Art.36 exemptions).

So if it was a problem Q and the measure was indistinctly applicable (which it probably would be because it would be too obvious if it was distinctly applicable), you would justify it by setting out any relevant mandatory requirements, with the court simply having regard to Art 36 exemptions because Art.36 apply to distinctly applicable measures and not indistinctly applicable measures.

Do I have this right?

channing90

Can someone please tell me what topics were in each question for contract, it was a very tough paper I felt.

nmurphy1441

channing90 wrote: »

Can someone please tell me what topics were in each question for contract, it was a very tough paper I felt.

From what I can gather...

Q1 Consideration and revocation
Q2 Consumer; consumer information, cancellations and other rights & unfair terms. Both legislation
Q3 Misrepresentation
Q4 Didn’t do it but think the first part was to do with the 1980 legislation and second part was penalty clauses

BasedHobbes

Has anyone unexpectedly passed equity before? I managed four relatively decent answers on Wednesday, before pulling a blank on the fifth and writing absolute nonsense. It's my third time attempting it now and I'm genuinely ****ting it.

sapphire309

BasedHobbes wrote: »

Has anyone unexpectedly passed equity before? I managed four relatively decent answers on Wednesday, before pulling a blank on the fifth and writing absolute nonsense. It's my third time attempting it now and I'm genuinely ****ting it.

Yes. Last sitting I had 3 good answers. I only answered 1 of the note questions, didn't even attempt the second required note question. Final Q had about 10 mins and wrote a page on estoppel, made no sense whatsoever - complete waffle. Still passed. The way I look at it, if you were able to get 11 in your 4 decent answers (maybe a 12), you only need 5-6 in your final Q

BasedHobbes

sapphire309 wrote: »

Yes. Last sitting I had 3 good answers. I only answered 1 of the note questions, didn't even attempt the second required note question. Final Q had about 10 mins and wrote a page on estoppel, made no sense whatsoever - complete waffle. Still passed. The way I look at it, if you were able to get 11 in your 4 decent answers (maybe a 12), you only need 5-6 in your final Q

Thanks a million. I managed to get four questions down pretty good, attempted a fifth badly, and then did half of the note q as I had time left and decided I hedge my bets. Hoping it's enough to get me by.

sapphire309

Feel like I'm shouting into the void here, but can somebody please explain the difference between Humblot and Commission v Greece re: Art 110? The facts are almost the same, I don't see why the Court approved Commission v Greece but found Humblot to be discriminatory

BasedHobbes

sapphire309 wrote: »

Feel like I'm shouting into the void here, but can somebody please explain the difference between Humblot and Commission v Greece re: Art 110? The facts are almost the same, I don't see why the Court approved Commission v Greece but found Humblot to be discriminatory

Humblot breached Art 110 insofar as French cars at the time didn't have more than 16 cylinder engines, but many German cars did. The increase in cost was fivefold or something to that effect once an engine exceeded 16 cylinders in size, and so was found to be disproportionate.

However, a proportionate increase in taxation based objective considerations of cylinder size wouldn't have breached Article 110.

In Commission v Greece, the taxation was found to be proportionate and based on objective criteria. If you look at paragraphs 17 to 20 of that judgment, it sets out the differences between it and Humblot for the purposes of Art 110.

sapphire309

BasedHobbes wrote: »

Humblot breached Art 110 insofar as French cars at the time didn't have more than 16 cylinder engines, but many German cars did. The increase in cost was fivefold or something to that effect once an engine exceeded 16 cylinders in size, and so was found to be disproportionate.

However, a proportionate increase in taxation based objective considerations of cylinder size wouldn't have breached Article 110.

In Commission v Greece, the taxation was found to be proportionate and based on objective criteria. If you look at paragraphs 17 to 20 of that judgment, it sets out the differences between it and Humblot for the purposes of Art 110.

You're a star

BasedHobbes

sapphire309 wrote: »

You're a star

Any time! Best of luck tomorrow!

Dliodoir2021

I’ve had food poisoning the last 5 days, mostly bed bound and only know fmg and direct effect well. Thought on my week off I’d learn the others (notes done but too sick to sit up). Should probably give it a shot anyway but feel like crap....