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

OfficeGirl2015

CKonetheonlyone wrote: »

Interesting that there are no other post mortem posts here. I must be the only poor sod in the Red Cow who is not supping a pint or a glass of wine.

Sorry CK, I was driving back to the office. I wasnt sure how I felt about it either. On the one hand, I managed 5 questions but apart from two, they were quite vague and unstructured answers.....I feel like I could sleep for a week, definitely in need of a Netflix binge, and guzzle several pints of vodka and red bull to chill out!!!!

OfficeGirl2015

anosullivan wrote: »

What was the question with the vacuums even about?

I had no idea. Originally I thought great a question of Competition and then I was like, wait is this a dominance question, nope. WHAT THE HELL WAS IT!!!!

OfficeGirl2015

CKonetheonlyone wrote: »

My case notes cases didn't come up except for Test Achats.

And the competition question - I wasn't expecting 106 and didn't know what to do with it. So I just transcribed 101/102/106, but I was too disheartened to even do that properly.

I didnt even want to do the case note question. I wanted 267 or The Commission. Couldnt do Q1 as didnt have a clue about the other so I would have had 1a commission and then 1b i couldve done actually. Crap. Did case notes on Pringle, Achates, and Zambrano...thank god my course lecturer had a thing for Zambrano. Couldnt forget it even if I tried.

Hunchback

OfficeGirl2015 wrote: »

I had no idea. Originally I thought great a question of Competition and then I was like, wait is this a dominance question, nope. WHAT THE HELL WAS IT!!!!

I answered it as a measure equivalent to a quantitive restriction question, but I think I may have referred to it as a QR rather than a MERQ

Then at the end of the exam I remembered that there actually WAS a reglulation (or something) in the EU over the last year that provided for this exact situation, whereby vacuum cleaners could not have above a certain power level.

Kcookies2015

Only 2 case notes I had came up! Panicked of Ellen question greatest amount of waffle ever written and was just short of rewriting the whole 2004/38 directive hahaha! Anyways 8 done and home after making my 2.25 hour journey in 1.6 hrs with excitement to see my bed!! Well done all.... Fingers crossed for results

Hunchback

Big shout out to everyone on this thread!!! Ye kept me going when I didn't want to anymore and kept me sane. Sometimes ye kept me logging on though when I really should have been studying. Hehe - only messin.


See you all back here for the results. And please God we won't all be back in the Red Ow again in October. But if we are, it's not the end of the world and we'll all get there when we are supposed to.


Ciao

BL23

Did the vacuum question not refer to to standing for judicial review under 263??

GummyBears

I thought Q2 was Judicial Review too - plaumann individual concern and the like.

EthanSS

I did the question on vacuum cleaners on MEQRS.

Now you guys say it, it prob was Judicial Review. Gutted. Absolutely gutted.

EthanSS

I did the question on vacuum cleaners on MEQRS.

Now you guys say it, it prob was Judicial Review. Gutted. Absolutely gutted.

OscarBN

BL23 wrote: »

Did the vacuum question not refer to to standing for judicial review under 263??

That's my thinking anyway,

OscarBN

EthanSS wrote: »

I did the question on vacuum cleaners on MEQRS.

Now you guys say it, it prob was Judicial Review. Gutted. Absolutely gutted.

Don't know how anyone flew through it. Knew 101 and 102 like the back of my hand. 106 hadn't a hope. Only had two case notes. Short on time. Disaster just trying to forget it

EthanSS

I wonder could you have answered it based on Judicial Review OR MEQR's?

I answered it on MEQR's. I thought that the regulation constituted a prohibition pursuant to S. 34 and 35. I thought it was a Keck Category 1 prohibition and it relates to the form and composition of the goods. And unless it could be justified it woodier contravene the FMOG.

God, I am such an idiot. I thought that was one of my good answers. So dejected and deflated now. Cannot get over my stupidity.

OscarBN

Perhaps. Maybe I'm being too literal, when it said does he have standing.
Who knows, alas the red cow again in sept

Fe1andDone

Just adding my thanks in to the pile with everyone else here. You're all so great and supportive so I hope the examiner surprises us all with some generous marks where needed!

EthanSS

You're right. I just re-read the question there and it asked do they have standing?

God, I'm so so annoyed. I wonder will I get any marks at all for answering on MEQR's.

I said they would have standing to challenge it under Art 34/35 as it would clearly violate the FMOG unless there was a justification. I feel the Q was worded in a very convoluted way.

Galw2014

EthanSS wrote: »

I wonder could you have answered it based on Judicial Review OR MEQR's?

I answered it on MEQR's. I thought that the regulation constituted a prohibition pursuant to S. 34 and 35. I thought it was a Keck Category 1 prohibition and it relates to the form and composition of the goods. And unless it could be justified it woodier contravene the FMOG.

God, I am such an idiot. I thought that was one of my good answers. So dejected and deflated now. Cannot get over my stupidity.

I did the exact same thing!!!

EthanSS

Ok, maybe if a few people did the same thing, marks might be awarded. I didn't even think about judicial review. Like I covered Judicial review and did the essay on it in the last paper (which I failed by 1%). Looking at the question now, clearly it's judicial reviews. It's so obvious.

I wonder though will we get marks for answering it on MEQR's. That's three of us here who approached it on that way.

oraghabd

EthanSS wrote: »

I did the question on vacuum cleaners on MEQRS.

Now you guys say it, it prob was Judicial Review. Gutted. Absolutely gutted.

But was there not another question on MEQRS. I waffled on about direct effect in desperation...

Knew I was way off but didn't have a clue.

The other 4 were passable but that was an abomination. Think I throw in MS liability when there was absolutely no reason for it

OscarBN

EthanSS wrote: »

Ok, maybe if a few people did the same thing, marks might be awarded. I didn't even think about judicial review. Like I covered Judicial review and did the essay on it in the last paper (which I failed by 1%). Looking at the question now, clearly it's judicial reviews. It's so obvious.

I wonder though will we get marks for answering it on MEQR's. That's three of us here who approached it on that way.

You'll be grand, I read on old examiner report that said students answered on art x, I was looking for art y and weren't penalised too heavily as they argued well.
Whole thing felt strangled and strained for me, wasn't on top form at all; well we survived onwards and upwards.

oraghabd

The Independent tips were way off. Not that I would blame him at all.

But we definitely did not cover equality and I don't think judicial review either. Or state aid.

Don't think there was anything on Art 258, 260 or 267 either which were their big tips.

Think they might have to give some 50% for efforts at this rate

OscarBN

oraghabd wrote: »

The Independent tips were way off. Not that I would blame him at all.

But we definitely did not cover equality and I don't think judicial review either. Or state aid.

Don't think there was anything on Art 258, 260 or 267 either which were their big tips.

Think they might have to give some 50% for efforts at this rate

Or the charter.....that was time well spent lol

clocks

anosullivan wrote: »

What was the question with the vacuums even about?

I'm intrigued by some of the comments... for the benefit of those of us who have yet to sit the EU Law examination would somone care to give a run-down of the paper, please ?

dashdoll

Well done to everyone who finished and made it through the past 2 weeks.

It's a pretty crap experience, so easy for an exam to go wrong and some people are under horrendous pressure for the exams with loss of training contracts etc hanging over them. It's just a crazy system.

Really wish the Law Society would put on a 3rd sitting a year but I'm sure they won't do anything to inconvenience themselves.

Meant to be going to blackhall in Sept but unlikely given my last two exams.

Anyway thanks for the advice on here....let's all enjoy chilling out for a bit!

Hunchback

I was wondering why I didn't recognise the question on judicial review and then a previous poster mentioned we skipped the chapter in Independent Colleges. Thems the breaks I suppose - he's a good lecturer and seems like a decent guy and it's such a huge course that it makes sense to try and rationally cut some out. I would've done the same (if I was brainy enough to lecture EU!)

EthanSS

Do people think we'll get marks for the MEQR approach? I actually did cover the Judicial Review topic, hence why I'm so annoyed with myself that I didn't cop it. It must have been exam nerves/pressure. I think when I opened the paper I thought it was 102 and then re-read it a few mins later and then thought it was MEQRs. Safe to say I'm a twat. So annoyed at myself.

beerose

EthanSS wrote: »

You're right. I just re-read the question there and it asked do they have standing?

God, I'm so so annoyed. I wonder will I get any marks at all for answering on MEQR's.

I said they would have standing to challenge it under Art 34/35 as it would clearly violate the FMOG unless there was a justification. I feel the Q was worded in a very convoluted way.

I also answered on MEQRs but was short on time with 20mins left and kept 2nd guessing that it was MEQRs so I panicked and only managed to bullet point random stuff that came to my head

A very disheartening & stressful round!

kiwi33

EthanSS wrote: »

Do people think we'll get marks for the MEQR approach? I actually did cover the Judicial Review topic, hence why I'm so annoyed with myself that I didn't cop it. It must have been exam nerves/pressure. I think when I opened the paper I thought it was 102 and then re-read it a few mins later and then thought it was MEQRs. Safe to say I'm a twat. So annoyed at myself.

The only reason I coped was because it said general courts and I went to the section of the legislation and I spied a provision that said that a person could go to the court to contest a piece of legislation directly effects them. I wrote that down said it directly effected him because he sold vacuums and would substantially affect his right to make a living. I got a page out of it... It'll have to do

kiwi33

oraghabd wrote: »

The Independent tips were way off. Not that I would blame him at all.

But we definitely did not cover equality and I don't think judicial review either. Or state aid.

Don't think there was anything on Art 258, 260 or 267 either which were their big tips.

Think they might have to give some 50% for efforts at this rate[/quot
I used those article to describe the functions and said that they allowed for the commissions supervisory role.

EthanSS

A few of us on this (Beerose, CkOne, Galw) seemed to have taken the MEQR approach so perhaps we'll get some marks for that approach? Clutching at straws here. I have prosecco chilling in the fridge but now I just want to go to bed after answering that question all wrong. The annoying thing is I thought I was approaching it correctly, it seems is logical in there. Ha!!