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

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.

Wonderstruck

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?:

UPA is only the AG's opinion which basically the court sent straight the shedder. Jego was only the court of first instance it was overturned on appeal.

263(4) tfeu was added by lisbon and now one does not need to show individual concern when challenging a regulatory act not addressed to you (In the Inuit case this was defined as "all acts of a general application which are not legislative".)

But Plaumann hasn't - to my knowledge - ever been overruled and still applies to legislative acts. UPA and Jego Quere did not overule it was tbe first one isnt binding and the second one was overruled in a higher court.

Wonderstruck

the baby bull elephant wrote: »

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

Beaten to it sorry for double posting!

20082014

EU Law Citizenship & FMOW

In relation to October 2018 Q.4, would anyone be able to explain if Lola would be able to get the student grant as she is a TCN and a worker?

ahhhhhFE1s

20082014 wrote: »

EU Law Citizenship & FMOW

In relation to October 2018 Q.4, would anyone be able to explain if Lola would be able to get the student grant as she is a TCN and a worker?

Don't think so as to get financial assistance for citizens you have to be working and can't be ancillary as per Brown v Secretary of State so for TCN don't think so.. Could say marry Fred and then get certain allowances per Metock.. Or that might be entitled to residency under Zambrano once the child is born but maybe not as dad is citizen per O, L and S or McCarthy.. Does any of this make sense??

20082014

ahhhhhFE1s wrote: »

Don't think so as to get financial assistance for citizens you have to be working and can't be ancillary as per Brown v Secretary of State so for TCN don't think so.. Could say marry Fred and then get certain allowances per Metock.. Or that might be entitled to residency under Zambrano once the child is born but maybe not as dad is citizen per O, L and S or McCarthy.. Does any of this make sense??

Thanks for that! for some reason I dont have the Brown case in my notes, any chance you have a brief summary of it?

Feel like I know nothing for tomorrow, such a nightmare!

ahhhhhFE1s

20082014 wrote: »

Thanks for that! for some reason I dont have the Brown case in my notes, any chance you have a brief summary of it?

Feel like I know nothing for tomorrow, such a nightmare!

Ya I'm the same brain is mush and so much to get through..
Brown v Secretary of State for Scotland (contrast)- employment is merely ancillary to studies, migrant workers are not entitled to financial assistance for their study in the host Member State

Think the facts were something like only got the job through the university and came and worked for 6mths before starting course??

Found this Where a person takes a job (and thus becomes a worker) solely as a result of his being accepted for admission to university to undertake studies related to the nature of his work, the employment relationship is merely ancillary to the studies.

illy.m

Good luck to everyone sitting EU today. Just few more hours and we will be done!!!!

Daly29

I will be eternally grateful with Gen Prins and Third Country National Qs. Good luck all!

sbbyrne

Daly29 wrote: »

I will be eternally grateful with Gen Prins and Third Country National Qs. Good luck all!

Quick q on this guys- does it matter how long a TCN is in the host MS for? Does it have to be 5 years, or if they’re married does it matter. Sorry this probably doesn’t even make sense my heads gone SOS

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?