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

Tom Young

This is the new FE1 Exam Thread

This is a link to the old one: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055143169

This is a link to the next one: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056907164

Sorry, I'm aware we are in the throws of FE1 season, but due to a server issue, a new thread was required. Old chats and posts below - Thanks!

Mod warning in post #1205: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88514663&postcount=1205

Mod warning in post #2555: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91819622&postcount=2555

Mod warning in post #2593: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92025688&postcount=2593

Moderator: The above warnings mean it is not ok to buy, sell or swap (trade) any exam materials in this thread. Exam grids are the only exception. You may request and exchange exam grids but at no point will money be allowed to change hands for them.

EmmaO94

That Contract paper caught me totally off guard

Was so ready for a nice juicy q on mistake, did not bank on misrep making a reappearance at all. Anyone else feel a bit shellshocked?

Daly29

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

Could anyone explain art 30 and art 110 to me in very basic English?

In a problem Q, if he specifically says it is a tax - do you then presume it forms part of the internal taxation system and just start talking about 110(2) and and 110(1)?

If he calls it a charge, do you go through cases that set out test if forms part of internal taxation scheme?

Also - the test for art 30 and 110 seems to be the same? Imports and exports (or is that only for 110?), sake marketing stage and chargable event the same

Any help much appreciated so confused!

Differentiating Between Article 34 or Articles 30 and 110
Whilst all three of these Treaty articles apply to the free movement of goods, they are mutually exclusive.
Article 34 or Articles 30 and 110
Generally, Art 34 TFEU will apply whenever the national rule does not involve a pecuniary charge. Therefore, if the particular national measure being examined does not require the payment of money, Art 35 TFEU is the applicable Treaty Article. Whenever the national rule does require the payment of money, either Art 30 TFEU or Art 10 TFEU will govern the national rule.
Article 30 or Article 110
Both Art 30 TFEU and Art 110 TFEU apply where the national rule requires payment of money of the product. Art 110 TFEU will apply when the payment relates to the internal tax system of the MS. Art 30 will apply when the payment constitutes a customs duty or charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty. An internal tax is a payment that must be made by imports, exports and goods produced domestically by the MS that impose the obligations to make the payment.
The practical significance of this distinction is that a customs duty is prohibited automatically pursuant to Art 30 TFEU, with certain narrow exceptions, whilst an internal tax is not prohibited by Art 110 TFEU unless it discriminates against imported goods or protects domestic goods, and it is only to the extent that it had this discriminatory protective effect. The case below shows how Art 110 measures of internal tax are to be distinguished from Art 30 customs duties.

supercreative

EU Citizenship

Have a few questions if anyone's feeling generous!

1. Do "vocational students" (people who have retained their worker status and so are able to get maintenance grants as in Lair v Universitat Hannover, Brown v Sec of State for Scotland etc) have to have been working in the country right up until they start studying? As in if I work as an accountant from May to June in Spain and then start an accountancy course in October am I entitled to get a grant for it?

2. When they say that students aren't entitled to "maintenance grants" without permanent residence (Bidar; Forster) does that apply to grants/loans to cover the fees or just grants/loans to cover living expenses?

SwD

EmmaO94 wrote: »

That Contract paper caught me totally off guard

Was so ready for a nice juicy q on mistake, did not bank on misrep making a reappearance at all. Anyone else feel a bit shellshocked?

Really threw me, no frustration, no illegality and no common mistake. I found it tough to answer 5.

LawGirl3434

ahhhhhFE1s wrote: »

holliek wrote: »

This is actually something I hadn't really thought about knowing the difference. The main thing is that art 30 prohibits a charge, whereas 110 allows a charge.

I also have in my notes that Denkavit tried to distinguish between the two, but I haven't written out how it does this!

This is not the most basic as my understanding isn't the best of what is the distinction but this is what i have in my notes.. Feel the element of a charge for crossing a border is important consideration on whether it is a charge under art 30 rather than tax

Internal Taxation:
If it relates to a general system of internal dues applied systematically and in accordance with the same criteria to domestic products and imported products alike. Where the charge is applied equally to national products, and imported products, and the “Chargeable event” is the same for both products,then such charges will be internal taxation, and thus outside the scope of Article 30.
Denkavit v France [1979] - Danish levy on animal feed imported from Holland. An annual levy applied to importers, and an annual levy applied to domestic manufacturers. ECJ held it was not a charge for “crossing the border”, but was a system of internal dues applied equally to everything. Thus fell to be considered by Article 110, instead of Article 30.

ECJ has indicated that for a charge applied at the border , to be an internal tax rather than a customs charge/CEE, three conditions must be satisfied - Michailidis [2000]:
○ Comparable charge is placed on domestic goods at the same rate.
○ The charge is paid at the marketing stage and
○ The charge is triggered by an identical chargeable event for both domestic and imported products.

Thanks so much for this. Just to say my notes for SARL Denkavit Lawrie v France say it was held to be a 30 breach, because didn’t apply to imports and exports the same? This is the animal slaughter one, in denkavit v min for agriculture I have that was a 110?

Maybe my notes are wrong

LawGirl3434

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

ahhhhhFE1s wrote: »

holliek wrote: »

This is actually something I hadn't really thought about knowing the difference. The main thing is that art 30 prohibits a charge, whereas 110 allows a charge.

I also have in my notes that Denkavit tried to distinguish between the two, but I haven't written out how it does this!

This is not the most basic as my understanding isn't the best of what is the distinction but this is what i have in my notes.. Feel the element of a charge for crossing a border is important consideration on whether it is a charge under art 30 rather than tax

Internal Taxation:
If it relates to a general system of internal dues applied systematically and in accordance with the same criteria to domestic products and imported products alike. Where the charge is applied equally to national products, and imported products, and the “Chargeable event” is the same for both products,then such charges will be internal taxation, and thus outside the scope of Article 30.
Denkavit v France [1979] - Danish levy on animal feed imported from Holland. An annual levy applied to importers, and an annual levy applied to domestic manufacturers. ECJ held it was not a charge for “crossing the border”, but was a system of internal dues applied equally to everything. Thus fell to be considered by Article 110, instead of Article 30.

ECJ has indicated that for a charge applied at the border , to be an internal tax rather than a customs charge/CEE, three conditions must be satisfied - Michailidis [2000]:
○ Comparable charge is placed on domestic goods at the same rate.
○ The charge is paid at the marketing stage and
○ The charge is triggered by an identical chargeable event for both domestic and imported products.

Thanks so much for this. Just to say my notes for SARL Denkavit Lawrie v France say it was held to be a 30 breach, because didn’t apply to imports and exports the same? This is the animal slaughter one, in denkavit v min for agriculture I have that was a 110?

Maybe my notes are wrong

Wait sorry think figured out the confusion on my end - animal slaughter was 30, animal feed was 110

EmmaO94

SwD wrote: »

Really threw me, no frustration, no illegality and no common mistake. I found it tough to answer 5.

Yeah I was very hard pushed to answer five too. Learned my lesson the hard way today - not to rely on predictions

iamanengine

I thought Contract was a tough paper but I was very lucky as I could only answer 5 Qs but they were topics I knew fairly well.

Thanks to everyone on here over the last few weeks.

Absolutely exhausted but relieved to be done. Having come nowhere close to getting the magic 3 last sitting think I’m in with a good shout this time.

I’m going to go drink myself into a coma now.

Daly29

iamanengine wrote: »

This is what I think came up anyway

Q1 Exclusion Clause/Consumer Protection - S.14
Q2 Promissory Estoppel/Implied Terms - Business Efficacy Test
Q3 Misrep, I think, didn’t do this
Q4 Undue Influence, I think, didn’t do this
Q5 Damages - Mitigation
Q6 Breach - Anticipatory, repudiatory and innominate terms
Q7 Privity
Q8 a. Construction of Terms - I answered on factual matrix test and mentioned parol evidence b. Not sure what this is

Would appreciate input here as I’m hoping I answered on the correct topics!!

sigh, made a fairly obvious error on Q1.... Should still be a pass (i hope)

niamh1612

Am I right in saying the only element of offer and acceptance was auction without reserve? Really strange paper, my last out of the magic three and almost definitely failed, answered 3 good and then half of two questions. Very disappointing.

Fe1hayes

I know people are very busy but eu paper last sitting I don't have the report. Would anyone who has it or would know how to answer qu flow? What is the relevance that they are state funded?

Daly29

niamh1612 wrote: »

Am I right in saying the only element of offer and acceptance was auction without reserve? Really strange paper, my last out of the magic three and almost definitely failed, answered 3 good and then half of two questions. Very disappointing.

Suppose at a stretch you could say there was offer/acceptance to be looked at re the no signature and emailed agreement in Q1.... Was happy until I somehow noticed that I read the limitation clause as not affecting statutory obligation. Ugh, saw covered statutory warranty and made an obvious mistake. Hope he goes easy on that mistake. Only had undue influence for the old dude and the guarantee. Said the bank should have red flagged it because of the manifest disadvantage, thought that wasn't the worst approach. Anyway , one more to go.

niamh1612

Daly29 wrote: »

Suppose at a stretch you could say there was offer/acceptance to be looked at re the no signature and emailed agreement in Q1.... Was happy until I somehow noticed that I read the limitation clause as not affecting statutory obligation. Ugh, saw covered statutory warranty and made an obvious mistake. Hope he goes easy on that mistake. Only had undue influence for the old dude and the guarantee. Said the bank should have red flagged it because of the manifest disadvantage, thought that wasn't the worst approach. Anyway , one more to go.

God I talked about unfair terms! For q 1 didn't even think of offer! I had unilateral mistake for the old guy BUT FOR THE LIFE OF ME couldn't think of the term non est factum. Good luck the end is near!!

Daly29

niamh1612 wrote: »

God I talked about unfair terms! For q 1 didn't even think of offer! I had unilateral mistake for the old guy BUT FOR THE LIFE OF ME couldn't think of the term non est factum. Good luck the end is near!!

It was a small part of the Q in fairness, the offer/acceptance part... I wrote "not what I signed up to" in kind of fancy handwriting to try to make it look a bit Latin :-) answer was basically saying the deal should never have happened regardless because the bank should have called him in or got him legal advice so kept banging on that.

SwD

Daly29 wrote: »

It was a small part of the Q in fairness, the offer/acceptance part... I wrote "not what I signed up to" in kind of fancy handwriting to try to make it look a bit Latin :-) answer was basically saying the deal should never have happened regardless because the bank should have called him in or got him legal advice so kept banging on that.

My main focus was mistake on the basis he thought it was a petition.

I think there could be two plausible answers here depending on the approach.

Daly29

SwD wrote: »

My main focus was mistake on the basis he thought it was a petition.

I think there could be two plausible answers here depending on the approach.

The most appropriate action/defence was non est factum but I have seen him in the reports mentioning other angles so he will award marks there. I stuck in he was misrepresented as well.

EmmaO94

Feel like the magic 3 have slipped away from me now unfortunately, so feeling very apathetic towards EU tomorrow.

Anyone have any wisdom on how to stay motivated?

Daly29

EmmaO94 wrote: »

Feel like the magic 3 have slipped away from me now unfortunately, so feeling very apathetic towards EU tomorrow.

Anyone have any wisdom on how to stay motivated?

My first two papers last sitting I felt went really bad. I knew I got issues wrong in my Tort and my Company was terrible. Ended passing (on appeal). Worse case scenario you it will stand to you next time. Think of all the hours already done and a few left, that's what I am trying to do.

Some guy in the LUAS told me that they are doing away with the magic 3 next year, anyone else hear that?

SwD

Daly29 wrote: »

My first two papers last sitting I felt went really bad. I knew I got issues wrong in my Tort and my Company was terrible. Ended passing (on appeal). Worse case scenario you it will stand to you next time. Think of all the hours already done and a few left, that's what I am trying to do.

Some guy in the LUAS told me that they are doing away with the magic 3 next year, anyone else hear that?

Highly doubt it, it’s a serious source of finance for the Law Society.

Breacnua

Daly29 wrote: »

My first two papers last sitting I felt went really bad. I knew I got issues wrong in my Tort and my Company was terrible. Ended passing (on appeal). Worse case scenario you it will stand to you next time. Think of all the hours already done and a few left, that's what I am trying to do.

Some guy in the LUAS told me that they are doing away with the magic 3 next year, anyone else hear that?

Maybe they are, I don’t know. Someone mentioned it on here few weeks ago. The only way it’s going is because they must be getting hammered for it and have to make changes. It’s going to be a long 6 weeks.

EmmaO94

Breacnua wrote: »

Maybe they are, I don’t know. Someone mentioned it on here few weeks ago. The only way it’s going is because they must be getting hammered for it and have to make changes. It’s going to be a long 6 weeks.

Thanks Daly29. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger right...!

It would be incredible if the magic 3 was done away with, but yes with amount of money the Law Soc makes from it, it's hard to see how they'd give it up.

iamanengine

What date do results come out?

Gunna have to book that day off work for sure!

Daly29

iamanengine wrote: »

What date do results come out?

Gunna have to book that day off work for sure!

Around November 30th, there are therabouts. I dread opening that. 3 very marginal, 1 fail so far. If I can turn tomorrow to 4 marginals I'll be very happy. So many hours done. A rake of fails would be hard to swallow after all this.

Breacnua

Daly29 wrote: »

Around November 30th, there are therabouts. I dread opening that. 3 very marginal, 1 fail so far. If I can turn tomorrow to 4 marginals I'll be very happy. So many hours done. A rake of fails would be hard to swallow after all this.

I’m reading the Peart report ... after contract today, must be mad. I don’t see anything about changing fe1s, plenty proposals tho to come into effect from 2020 if rolled out

Proposal 5: It’s been strongly proposed that full time legal executives over 5 years don’t have to do FE1S from next year.( Unless I’m stupid and read it wrong, contract took it out of my today )

nmurphy1441

How does the contract examiner divide marks for each question generally? Like with question 1 today.... with the clause incorporated into the contract as the first part and whether it is effective to protect Joe as the second part!? 10 marks for each?

Daly29

Kinda annoyed how a few of my papers went so going to just do everything I can to get one I can come away with feeling good about. Running on empty now. Going to go with the below and surely I can't fail. Dont really like some of my notes but anyway. Plan is to really really condence my notes to easy to rote learn, very shorthand. Do that for about 4 hours, bed and sleep till about 1AM - up, learn the very condenced notes for like 7 hours. Pass and celebrate. Hope I'm not taking on too many topics as I dont have much of a grasp of EU at present at all. Hope this plan is bullet proof.

Institutions (Essay)
Gen Principles (Essay)
Direct Effect/Member State Liability (problem)
Judicial review (Essay)
Free Movement of Goods (problem)
Citizenship
Equality
Competiton Law (problem)

JohnsKite

what do ye fine people think was the least popular question on today's contract paper?

iamanengine

JohnsKite wrote: »

what do ye fine people think was the least popular question on today's contract paper?

Privity I'd assume?

holliek

Am I right in thinking that in Kingdom of Belgium v Ryanair, Ryanair won the case and it wasn't illegal state aid?

20082014

EU

Does anyone know the 3 principles form the innuit case from Judicial Review topic - all I have for this case is that it clarified what a regulatory act is as there was a lot of confusion post Lisbon?

Wonderstruck

iamanengine wrote: »

What date do results come out?

Gunna have to book that day off work for sure!

I remember one time I turned off my phone so I didnt stress at work, transpired the website had issues and no one was able to access it until shortly before I finished work! Phew!

LawGirl3434

20082014 wrote: »

EU

Does anyone know the 3 principles form the innuit case from Judicial Review topic - all I have for this case is that it clarified what a regulatory act is as there was a lot of confusion post Lisbon?

Personally not going into that much detail - judicial review is huge, would rather give definition and spend my time explaining plaumann greenpeace upa etc

Daly29

Found this helpful when looking at the FMOG Problems:

SUMMARY
But each question can be approached in the same way and can greater reduce the complexity of the topic. The following 5 step test should be applied when answering a problem question:
1) Identify the national measure which may offend the freedom
2) Is there a payment of money? If so then it is necessary to determine if the measure falls under Art 30 TFEU or Art 110 TFEU.
3) If there is no payment of money, the national measure must be examined under Art 34 TFEU
4) Once the correct treaty article is identified the answer should determine if the national measure s contrary to that article
5) If it is then is may be possible to justify the national measure
6) If there is a justification then it must be proportionate to the end sought to be achieved.

Jenosul

I did not get my magic three last year. I was emotionally devastated. These exams do nothing for your mental health. Only thing I can say is I’m sure I got them this time, I built on all I had studied previously and it was easier. It’s not you either if you don’t pass, many people do not get the magic 3 the first go. It is the nature of the exams. Try not be hard on yourself. You also don’t know for sure yet. Keep the head down and do something nice when your finished...and also catch up on sleep! Good luck in EU

quote="EmmaO94;111466627"]Feel like the magic 3 have slipped away from me now unfortunately, so feeling very apathetic towards EU tomorrow.

Anyone have any wisdom on how to stay motivated?[/quote]

PuffleHuffLyra

Anyone have any advice on question 5 of the spring 2018 EU paper?

Bradley is an Australian TCN living in France with an expired residence permit & a Dutch wife but the couple have since separated (they were together for 1 year). No kids. He previously held a valid residence permit but this has expired & his application for renewal has been refused.

Not even sure where to start given his status as a TCN and separated from his wife. Would you just argue that he may be able to stay on grounds of being a family member of an EU worker if they don't divorce?

Any help at all would be much appreciated. I'm quite nervous now after looking at the exam papers.

holliek

PuffleHuffLyra wrote: »

Anyone have any advice on question 5 of the spring 2018 EU paper?

Bradley is an Australian TCN living in France with an expired residence permit & a Dutch wife but the couple have since separated (they were together for 1 year). No kids. He previously held a valid residence permit but this has expired & his application for renewal has been refused.

Not even sure where to start given his status as a TCN and separated from his wife. Would you just argue that he may be able to stay on grounds of being a family member of an EU worker if they don't divorce?

Any help at all would be much appreciated. I'm quite nervous now after looking at the exam papers.

If they divorce, he would still be entitled to stay under art 13 of the directive. However as he is a TCN he will additionally have to satisfy the requirements under 13.2

LawBoy2018

Would anu kind soul have any EU law notes to share? Picked this subject up a few days ago after a bad exam, most likely my last shot this round to get the magic three

htnor

Question: does the external examiner review answers in the first correction or only on appeal??

LawGirl3434

htnor wrote: »

Question: does the external examiner review answers in the first correction or only on appeal??

Viewed my scripts last time having passed just wanted to see how they were marked and 2 of mine had gone out to external, my understanding is it’s very random like every 1 in 100 so probably just coincidence 2 of mine did.

htnor

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

Viewed my scripts last time having passed just wanted to see how they were marked and 2 of mine had gone out to external, my understanding is it’s very random like every 1 in 100 so probably just coincidence 2 of mine did.

Wow ok I didn’t know that at all I assumed it was much more than that. Anyone have and feedback re rechecks if/when the time comes? Have copies of my scripts for last sitting and kind of regretting not getting some rechecked. The fee just boils my blood....

luimneachabu73

What are the differences in rights for a 'worker' compared to a mere EU citizen?

Thank you

ahona

Irrespective of what the outcome (and I know it wont be a 'desirable one' for sure) , I'd like to thank you folks for being the strongest pillar of strength.

Good luck to people appearing for EU exams!

Until next time!

#FE1Season1Finale

ahhhhhFE1s

holliek wrote: »

If they divorce, he would still be entitled to stay under art 13 of the directive. However as he is a TCN he will additionally have to satisfy the requirements under 13.2

Could throw in the Kuldip Singh & ors v Minister for Justice and Equality- non EU spouse cannot retain right of residency where the commencement of divorce precedes the departure of the EU spouse from the MS and maybe Metock, ECJ overturned itself previously in which it had held that the national of a non-member country who is spouse of a Union citizen must be lawfully resident in a MS when he moves to another MS to which the Union citizen is migrating. (Akrich)- neither entirely relevant but something!

JCormac

For Citizenship I am right in thinking that "purely internal situation" refers to a situation where the EU Citizen has never left their own country, to travel to another EU country, even for like a holiday, never? And therefore they haven't exercised their 'right of free movement'?

Like if an Irish woman (lived in Ireland her whole life, spent every holiday in Bray & never visited another EU country EVER) wanted to keep her (newly married) Russian husband in Ireland with her, that just wouldn't be allowed due to the fact she's never visited another EU country?

That's what it's reading as but it sounds outlandish.

It's probably simple but my head is absolutely melted from Judicial review

supercreative

JCormac wrote: »

For Citizenship I am right in thinking that "purely internal situation" refers to a situation where the EU Citizen has never left their own country, to travel to another EU country, even for like a holiday, never? And therefore they haven't exercised their 'right of free movement'?

That's what it's reading as but it sounds outlandish.

It's probably simple but my head is absolutely melted from Judicial review

I feel like it's unlikely it applies to holidays. But I would imagine if there were a Zambrano/Stella McCarthy problem Q it would specify that the person had never left whatever country just to make it clear.

sbbyrne

JCormac wrote: »

For Citizenship I am right in thinking that "purely internal situation" refers to a situation where the EU Citizen has never left their own country, to travel to another EU country, even for like a holiday, never? And therefore they haven't exercised their 'right of free movement'?

Like if an Irish woman (lived in Ireland her whole life, spent every holiday in Bray & never visited another EU country EVER) wanted to keep her (newly married) Russian husband in Ireland with her, that just wouldn't be allowed due to the fact she's never visited another EU country?

That's what it's reading as but it sounds outlandish.

It's probably simple but my head is absolutely melted from Judicial review

supercreative wrote: »

I feel like it's unlikely it applies to holidays. But I would imagine if there were a Zambrano/Stella McCarthy problem Q it would specify that the person had never left whatever country just to make it clear.

I think wholly internal is in relation to not having worked/lived elsewhere in the EU, not holidaying/leaving the country at all. Open to corrections but that was my understanding of it.?

JohnsKite

how do you get copies of your exam?

law_struggles

Regarding legal standing

Is Plaumann still followed?

Did UPA and Jego Quere try to move away to a more lenient view but were reverted to Plaumann?:

supercreative

law_struggles wrote: »

Regarding legal standing

Is Plaumann still followed?

Did UPA and Jego Quere try to move away to a more lenient view but were reverted to Plaumann?:

Yup. In UPA, Advocate General Jacobs recommended moving away from Plaumann but the ECJ ignored him; the General Court decision in Jégo Queré was written after AG Jacobs' opinion in UPA but before it was dismissed by the ECJ so it doesn't change Plaumann. Similar situation in Greenpeace v Commission: attempts by the claimant to criticise the Plaumann test were rejected by the ECJ. In short: Plaumann is still followed.

the baby bull elephant

law_struggles wrote: »

Regarding legal standing

Is Plaumann still followed?

Did UPA and Jego Quere try to move away to a more lenient view but were reverted to Plaumann?:

Plaumann still applies if it's not a regulatory act which doesn't entail implementing measures as you have to show individual concern.