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

XxMCRxBabyxX

Last minute panic here but would anyone have case notes for Microsoft or Pringle that can send me? I'm not at home and can't find mine!!

I'm an idiot... Found them!

Lumi77

FOHSMH254 wrote: »

A Directive has to contain a clear and precise right to be relied upon.

Sometimes this isn't the case, like in Francovich. MS can be liable if:

1. The result prescribed by a Directive entails the grant of a right/rights;
2. It's possible to identify the content of those rights; and
3. There is a causal link between the MS failure to implement and the individual's loss

Thank you I understand that but I am confused if it comes up in a problem question

yournerd

the more I read the more I am confused, dreading this!

kiwi33

Lumi77 wrote: »

How does one differentiate in a question if is direct effect of members state liability?
Kind of confused

Member state liability can be used if a directive does not have direct effect, if the date for transposition has past, or failed to amend existing legislation. Or if they have implemented legislation incorrectly. Also can apply to situations of DE as DE only minimum guarantee.

You then have to apply franchovich test. Test aimed to fill lacuna where no direct effect available

nmwcc

Can anyone tell me would I be okay covering the following;

Difference between regulations/directives/decisions
Direct Effect/Supremacy
Judicial Review
Member State Liability
General Principles
Citzenship
Equality
Competition Law
State Aid
FMG
FM Workers, Services, Establishment

and Case notes??

LexJura2737

Does anyone have the Contract paper from October 2016?
I have papers from March if anyone would like to do a swap!

OMGWACA

PROPERTY LAW

Anyone have any sample answers or anything for the Family Home Protection please? All my stuff is pre-Marriage Referendum! I have other sample answers if people want to swap!

Lumi77

kiwi33 wrote: »

Member state liability can be used if a directive does not have direct effect, if the date for transposition has past, or failed to amend existing legislation. Or if they have implemented legislation incorrectly. Also can apply to situations of DE as DE only minimum guarantee.

You then have to apply franchovich test. Test aimed to fill lacuna where no direct effect available

Thank you that makes sense
Much appreciated

FOHSMH254

I'm a bit confused as to what constitutes a "regulatory act" under Art 263...notes seem to suggest a Regulation can fall within this definition but is that not a legislative act?

Can anyone help me out? Thanks!

LegalAnna

I know everyone is concentrating on EU atm but I can't stop thinking about the exam today. What did anyone say for the slow but steady decline in the protections afforded to accused persons? I know I failed that exam badly! Was finished 20 mins early and everything!

Bayb12

LegalAnna wrote: »

I know everyone is concentrating on EU atm but I can't stop thinking about the exam today. What did anyone say for the slow but steady decline in the protections afforded to accused persons? I know I failed that exam badly! Was finished 20 mins early and everything!

I took it as an article 38.1 essay and disagreed with the statement then went through all the various protections there is

LegalAnna

Bayb12 wrote: »

I took it as an article 38.1 essay and disagreed with the statement then went through all the various protections there is

Oh thank God! That's what I did aswell but said the only one that statement could apply to is RE JC case of wrongfully obtaining evidence. Thanks!

Bayb12

LegalAnna wrote: »

Oh thank God! That's what I did aswell but said the only one that statement could apply to is RE JC case of wrongfully obtaining evidence. Thanks!

Oh I never even connected that seems so obvious now!!

LegalAnna

Bayb12 wrote: »

Oh I never even connected that seems so obvious now!!

Tbh I only remembered it because it was the last thing I looked at last night!

By any chance did you answer the question on the difference between Bederev and McGowan? I completely blanked and I can't find the answer now!

Bayb12

LegalAnna wrote: »

Tbh I only remembered it because it was the last thing I looked at last night!

By any chance did you answer the question on the difference between Bederev and McGowan? I completely blanked and I can't find the answer now!

I spoofed that one just knew it was something to do with SOP and principles and policies

bluntspoon

FOHSMH254 wrote: »

I'm a bit confused as to what constitutes a "regulatory act" under Art 263...notes seem to suggest a Regulation can fall within this definition but is that not a legislative act?

Can anyone help me out? Thanks!

A regulation is not a regulatory act - you're right it's a legislative act. Inuit Tapirit is the authority for this.

As far as I know there has not yet been any clear ruling on what constitutes a regulatory act. The CJEU has considered other cases claiming to fall under 263(4) and rejected them on the basis that the act requires implementing measures. Telefonica and Tate & Lyle Sugars would be examples of this.

Robbie25808

EU:

In relation to Third Country Nationals.

If a person from America comes over to Ireland and marry do they have an automatic right to residency?

If they marry in America and come over to Ireland then do they have a right to residency?

bluntspoon

Robbie25808 wrote: »

EU:

In relation to Third Country Nationals.

If a person from America comes over to Ireland and marry do they have an automatic right to residency?

If they marry in America and come over to Ireland then do they have a right to residency?

Where and when the couple are married is of no relevance. Metock is the authority for this. Overturning Ackritch.

If an American comes to Ireland and marries an Irish national that is a wholly internal situation and doesn't fall within the scope of EU law. (Edit: At least this is my understanding - I am unclear whether Zambrano may have had some impact here in light of the AG's Opinion in that case - I am open to correction)

If they marry a non-Irish EU citizen resident in Ireland, they have a right of residence derived from the spouse who is exercising their free movement rights. Directive 2004/38.

Robbie25808

bluntspoon wrote: »

Where and when the couple are married is of no relevance. Metock is the authority for this. Overturning Ackritch.

If an American comes to Ireland and marries an Irish national that is a wholly internal situation and doesn't fall within the scope of EU law.

If they marry a non-Irish EU citizen resident in Ireland, they have a right of residence derived from the spouse who is exercising their free movement rights. Directive 2004/38.

Perfect. So there has to be movement to trigger it?

So if an American Marrys and Irish in Ireland they have no right but if they marry an Irish person in the UK they have a right?

Robbie25808

bluntspoon wrote: »

Where and when the couple are married is of no relevance. Metock is the authority for this. Overturning Ackritch.

If an American comes to Ireland and marries an Irish national that is a wholly internal situation and doesn't fall within the scope of EU law. (Edit: At least this is my understanding - I am unclear whether Zambrano may have had some impact here in light of the AG's Opinion in that case - I am open to correction)

If they marry a non-Irish EU citizen resident in Ireland, they have a right of residence derived from the spouse who is exercising their free movement rights. Directive 2004/38.

Why then in the case R v Baumbast, a Colombian married a German residing in the UK. The case focuses on the fact that their kids have started education and that the primary carer has a right to reside?

Would they not also have a right to reside as the movement has been triggered?

bluntspoon

Robbie25808 wrote: »

Why then in the case R v Baumbast, a Colombian married a German residing in the UK. The case focuses on the fact that their kids have started education and that the primary carer has a right to reside?

Would they not also have a right to reside as the movement has been triggered?

The matter falls within the scope of EU law because of the movement. That doesn't imply that there is an automatic right to reside. The right to reside is not absolute - it is subject to conditions. Baumbast wasn't an EU worker any longer - he had left the EU to work in Asia.

bluntspoon

Robbie25808 wrote: »

Perfect. So there has to be movement to trigger it?

So if an American Marrys and Irish in Ireland they have no right but if they marry an Irish person in the UK they have a right?

Under EU law that's correct. Provided the Irish person in the UK meets the residency requirements in A7 Directive 2004/38.

Robbie25808

bluntspoon wrote: »

Under EU law that's correct. Provided the Irish person in the UK meets the residency requirements in A7 Directive 2004/38.

Great thanks for that.

Sorry one final question. What is the rule in relation to educational grants and fees?

Does Foresstor say that they can refuse other nationals to study in their state?

Bigdreamer123

Wondering if anyone could help me out with condensed notes for criminal, property and contract?

Like longer than the night before , around a page or that?

I've made my own notes two sets getting smaller each time but still so much!

Particularly interested in Property or contract as I've so much to look over for three subjects !

I'm not lazy! I've been studying for months but last minute panic!!

bluntspoon

Robbie25808 wrote: »

Great thanks for that.

Sorry one final question. What is the rule in relation to educational grants and fees?

Does Foresstor say that they can refuse other nationals to study in their state?

No problem

The rule now reflects the judgment in Foster and is formalised in Directive 2004/38 (I've forgotten which article) - member states can limit student supports to persons with a right to permanent residence in the host state (i.e. who have resided in the host state for 5yrs).

The Talking Bread

God, I miss EU Law!

yournerd

The Talking Bread wrote: »

God, I miss EU Law!

Wanna do my exam?

Robbie25808

bluntspoon wrote: »

No problem

The rule now reflects the judgment in Foster and is formalised in Directive 2004/38 (I've forgotten which article) - member states can limit student supports to persons with a right to permanent residence in the host state (i.e. who have resided in the host state for 5yrs).

So if an Irish guy goes to France to study, they can refuse him support even if he has been a resident there for 5 years?

But do you not have a right to permanent residency after 5 years?

bluntspoon

The Talking Bread wrote: »

God, I miss EU Law!

Are you mad?? It's the devil!

bluntspoon

Robbie25808 wrote: »

So if an Irish guy goes to France to study, they can refuse him support even if he has been a resident there for 5 years?

But do you not have a right to permanent residency after 5 years?

No, they can refuse him UNLESS he has been resident for five years. After five years he is entitled to permanent residency and this gives him an entitlement to access student supports.