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

niamh1612 wrote: »

Is anybody else staying awake till all hours tonight? Always reassuring to know someone else is!!

Yup, I have another few hours to go. Hopefully sleep 4-6. Trying to do Equity today with no sleep wasnt great tho. Like trying to to do an exam very drunk. Serious memory loss, drifting off and missing simple elements in problem Qs. Be good to get some sleep if you can. I find regurgitating essays OK when Im very sleepy but problem Qs can be tricky. Anyway, better shut this off :-)

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

What's the latest time I can hand in legislation tomorrow for EU law on Thursday?

1pm. They will accept it the morning of the exams too, but you will get it approximately 30 minutes into the exam.

Thegusbus wrote: »

Hi iamanengine,

What topics did you end up covering ?

O/A
Consideration
Intention
Estoppel
Terms
Exclusion
Consumer Protection
Discharge
Damages
Mistake

Now whether I know them or not is another thing entirely

Everyone using train check the timetable this morning, major disruptions over night, none going in my area 😭

JonnyHanlon wrote: »

So my fellow warriors, I have shot my load until the next sitting.

These exams are the truest tests on my quest to becoming the ultimate legal warrior. I have faced many adversities, including Tort law and Equity and I am still standing.

Many foes await on my journey, including Property and Constitutional, on my path to the promised lands and I will be ready.

Keep fighting the good fight my fellow law warriors.

Forward to the blessed shores of Blackhall!

lawlad101 wrote: »

Institutions
Principles
Supremacy
Direct Effect
Member State Liability
Judicial Review
Free movement of goods
Free movement of services
Free movement of workers
Citizenship
Equality

Surely this is enough even leaving out competition law?

Should be fine, but supremacy never really comes up (could bring into general principles I guess?) and FMOS is small and from my reading of papers only really seems to come up under the new examiner mixed into FMOW? so I’d focus less on them but just my opinion!

supercreative wrote: »

I was actually wondering this, what do people think about using supremacy in a general principles essay? To me it feels kind of like dodging the question because I don't like legit expectations or transparency but I would love to do it if I could get away with it.

I think you can like it’s just so relevant? Like maybe I’m totally wrong but I feel it’s like the basis of everything kinda? I mean if people are talking about direct effect when they’ve answered a separate Q on it, surely you can talk about supremacy?

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

I think you can like it’s just so relevant? Like maybe I’m totally wrong but I feel it’s like the basis of everything kinda? I mean if people are talking about direct effect when they’ve answered a separate Q on it, surely you can talk about supremacy?

From my understanding and the advice on the night before notes (haven't looked at exam reports yet) it is acceptable to pick three principles (including fundamental rights) and do a general principles question just on that... I've prepared fundamental rights, supremacy and proportionality for a general principles question.. If it comes up!

sbbyrne wrote: »

Guys, for Judicial Review, would anyone be abele to give me a short synopsis of the Greenpeace case please? I don't think what's in my notes is correct - and i've goggled it keep getting conflicting answers, and now i'm all over the place! Thanks!

Below is what I have...

Rationale for the Restrictive Test

• ECJ has attempted to justify the restrictive test by claiming that a more open test for standing would result in the ECJ being overwhelmed by cases from NPA.

• Greenpeace v Commission – applicant challenged the above justification – by refusing an applicant standing just because many other applicants have the same problem would mean the EU’s biggest issues would go unchallenged with Art. 263 being limited to inter-institution battles and minor errors affecting one private party – ECJ dismissed this argument.

ahhhhhFE1s wrote: »

Below is what I have...

Rationale for the Restrictive Test

• ECJ has attempted to justify the restrictive test by claiming that a more open test for standing would result in the ECJ being overwhelmed by cases from NPA.

• Greenpeace v Commission – applicant challenged the above justification – by refusing an applicant standing just because many other applicants have the same problem would mean the EU’s biggest issues would go unchallenged with Art. 263 being limited to inter-institution battles and minor errors affecting one private party – ECJ dismissed this argument.

lawlad101 wrote: »

I also have ECJ held being a special interest group does not equate to having individual concern.

Thanks so much

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

I feel it was mainly FMOW. She met the definition of worker, was an EU citizen and there was a cross border element. Could argue was direct or indirect discrimination and then the justifications.

Not looking at the papers at the minute, and very much open to correction here but in my head only bring in citizenships for: third country nationals (protected largely from judgement stemming from metlock), student workers (brown v sec of state pretty much excluded them from art 45 forever, while they’ve gotten a fair bit of protection from citizenship and the case law stemming from that - although art 24(2) is pretty much a caveat the MS can deny grants if not perm residence) and family members

Thank you Law Girl!!

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!

holliek wrote: »

EU Judicial Review

In the NBN he mentions that the Codorniu case failed but in my notes I have that the applicant was granted standing..
Anyone able to shed light on this?

All I have is that it confirmed the harsh test in plaumann remains

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

All I have is that it confirmed the harsh test in plaumann remains

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uni%C3%B3n_de_Peque%C3%B1os_Agricultores

Have a look at the AG's pretty scathing attack in UPA but yes Plaumann is still good law.

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.