Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1189190192194195334

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 387 ✭✭bigtophat13


    Does anybody know did the eu examiner change in 2015? Looking back at papers everything seems really predictable up until 2015 but after that there’s not many questions I could do on the papers easily or make out what they’re about

    I have the last 5 papers only but every year there's been a question on 263, nearly every year one on direct effect with member state liability attached, always one on free movement of workers / citizenship aspects, always one if not 2 (last 2 sittings) on free movement of goods. Always the case note. Then the first 2 the last 5 have always been 2 of legislation in EU / democratic deficit , Pelati v Slovenia (I don't understand it and its too late now) and fundamental principles.
    The last question is then usually equality or competition and sometimes a choice.


  • Registered Users Posts: 264 ✭✭madonna123


    Question 3 Equity March 2018

    Betty died recently in contentious circumstances��. She had been suffering from cancer which was, unfortunately, at a most advanced stage. She refused to go to the hospital and was being cared for at home by a nurse and an attending doctor. her close friends, Mary & Jane, moved into the house to be with her around the clock. Apprx. a fortnight before her death, Betty was told by the doc that she had only about 1 month to live. Betty was in agony and not receiving comfort from her med's.
    Her only comfort was from her friends who were most attentive and spent their days beside her.
    One day, while while her close friend Jane was with her, Betty opened her bedside locker and presented her with a key to a box which was downstairs in the kitchen of the house and which contained her personal papers. Betty told Jane that the title deeds to an old house that she bought some years ago where in the box. Expressing her gratitude to Jane for her devoted friendship.
    Betty told Jane that she wished her to have the house. Some days later, Betty was in very considerable pain and asked Mary, who was by her side at the time, to assist her in her efforts to end her life.
    Mary resisted originally but, watching her friend's pain, eventually acceded to Betty's request.

    While cleaning out Betty's belongings some days ago, Jane came across alocked box.
    Using the key Betty had given her, she opened the box and found the deeds to the house to which Betty had referred.
    Advise Jane as to her entitlement in relation to Betty's house.
    Students do not need to consider issues pursuant to the succession act 1965


  • Registered Users Posts: 264 ✭✭madonna123


    Equity question 4 - March 2018

    Write a note on 2 of the following:

    -Doctrine of satisfaction
    -Equities approach to the rectification of unilateral mistakes by parties to an agreement
    -Rule in Strong v Bird

    Question 8
    Write a note on each of the following
    A) Trustee's duty to invest AND
    B) Trustee's duty to properly exercise his/her discretion


  • Registered Users Posts: 293 ✭✭Tony_TwoLegs


    FE1s2018 wrote: »
    EU:

    Institutions/ Democratic Deficit
    General Principles
    Direct Effect + MSL
    Enforcement (258)
    Annulment (263)
    Preliminary Reference (267)
    Free Movement- Goods (34, 30, 110), Services (56), Establishment (49), Workers (45)
    Citizenship
    Equality

    Will that be OK? No competition, mergers, state aid etc. No case note question.

    Snap.
    Though I didn't do Services/Establishment as he seems to love Goods/Workers.
    Plus I lost my Treaties manual so have to learn the numbers albeit not that onerous


  • Registered Users Posts: 278 ✭✭lawless11


    Were the principles of effectiveness & equivalency ever on the past papers? I have like two poor cases on that...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 293 ✭✭Tony_TwoLegs


    lawless11 wrote: »
    Were the principles of effectiveness & equivalency ever on the past papers? I have like two poor cases on that...

    March 2017 for the first time I think. So 3 papers ago from my grid. I abandoned it as my revisionary notes on it confused me.... despite the fact I wrote them....


  • Registered Users Posts: 67 ✭✭Freckley201


    Question on indirect effect, since I'm after confusing myself!

    For EU, the Direct Effect/State Liability question is usually always where

    (1) directive has not been implemented
    (2) Joe Bloggs does something against the directive that gives him a criminal conviction and causes Mary some injury

    The question asks if Mary can get compensation from Joe Bloggs and/or the state.

    I know directives are only vertically effective but surely Mary can rely on indirect effect to get compensation off Joe also, i.e. where the courts have to interpret the law based on the directive? Wasn't this the case in Van Colson?

    The sample answer I have basically says Mary can only sue the state so I'm not sure if I'm wrong.


  • Registered Users Posts: 387 ✭✭bigtophat13


    Question on indirect effect, since I'm after confusing myself!

    For EU, the Direct Effect/State Liability question is usually always where

    (1) directive has not been implemented
    (2) Joe Bloggs does something against the directive that gives him a criminal conviction and causes Mary some injury

    The question asks if Mary can get compensation from Joe Bloggs and/or the state.

    I know directives are only vertically effective but surely Mary can rely on indirect effect to get compensation off Joe also, i.e. where the courts have to interpret the law based on the directive? Wasn't this the case in Van Colson?

    The sample answer I have basically says Mary can only sue the state so I'm not sure if I'm wrong.

    Look up Kopinghuis Nijmegen for the criminal aspect and Arcaro for the non criminal aspect. Essentially they think it's unfair to get a criminal charge for something that wasn't implemented and it has been said they wouldn't make you liable where non criminal but the Centrosteel decision has called that into question.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16 Becks63976


    Could someone please briefly explain the relevance of calpak v commission in relation to article 263 TFEU.


  • Registered Users Posts: 278 ✭✭lawless11


    Look up Kopinghuis Nijmegen for the criminal aspect and Arcaro for the non criminal aspect. Essentially they think it's unfair to get a criminal charge for something that wasn't implemented and it has been said they wouldn't make you liable where non criminal but the Centrosteel decision has called that into question.

    Damn, all the cases I had no idea they existed. #soreadynot


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 319 ✭✭jus_me


    Can anyone explain Kecks impact on fmog :(


  • Registered Users Posts: 293 ✭✭Tony_TwoLegs


    jus_me wrote: »
    Can anyone explain Kecks impact on fmog :(

    Keck drew a line between what it said were "product rules", ie those relating to designation, form, size, weight, composition, presentation, labeling, packaging – which would be prohibited under article 34, and "selling arrangements" which were considered not to be caught by the ambit of 34


  • Registered Users Posts: 22 olliej


    Same boat, have been reading this horror for two months, still can't repeat any of it. There's just far too much to take in


    I did my work for EU (or so I thought) and focused on my other 2 subjects the past fortnight but somehow I completely overlooked the fact I had notes written out on only 2 topics for EU and only discovered this Today!!?!!

    I still cannot believe I managed that. So now, in true fashion of denial, I'm going to bed and pretending like I'm not walking into my funeral tomorrow.

    Goodnight and good luck folks.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12 BeepBoopBot


    Anybody have a democratic deficit essay they can throw my way?
    There isn't enough sudafed and coffee in the world to get me through tonight lol


  • Registered Users Posts: 27 FE1 Lady


    Oh lads will we all be looking at one another tomorrow morning in the exam hall? No cramming could prepare you for this....

    Christ I have forgot everything it’s as if I’m reading it for the first time again!!


  • Registered Users Posts: 67 ✭✭Freckley201


    What are the chances of an overnight IREXIT so I won't have to sit the exam tomorrow?


  • Registered Users Posts: 140 ✭✭sapphire309


    Having to cut topics for equity drastically. All I have time to learn is injunctions, tracing, 3 certainties, charitable incl. cy pres, SP + 2 back ups. What would people recommend as 2 easy-to-learn back up topics?


  • Registered Users Posts: 15 lawdedaw


    Honest question but is there anyone out there who genuinely feels confident about the study they have done for EU and for the exam tomorrow? If such a person exists, I really really commend you haha


  • Registered Users Posts: 81 ✭✭david_etc


    I know this is probably a bit late but I noticed in one of the grind school manuals (can't say which one obviously) that they have made a very confusing mistake in respect of defences to Article 34 TFEU (quantitative restrictions and MEQRs).

    Basically, the manual says that the defences to indistinctly applicable measures (Cassis di Dijon) are the "mandatory requirements" and Article 36 defences. This is wrong.

    The defences for distinctly applicable measures are listed under Article 36.
    The defences for indistinctly applicable measures are the "mandatory requirements", listed in Cassis.

    This is a somewhat artificial split (as they both cover things like public health) but I thought I'd note this in case that helps anyone.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16 Fe1andDone


    Madonna you're brilliant! Thanks so much!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 278 ✭✭lawless11


    lawdedaw wrote: »
    Honest question but is there anyone out there who genuinely feels confident about the study they have done for EU and for the exam tomorrow? If such a person exists, I really really commend you haha


    I wonder aha. It must exist I reckon. I feel totally lost and incapable :-D. So I'm not one of them. Feeling like I know nothing (like Jon).


  • Registered Users Posts: 387 ✭✭bigtophat13


    david_etc wrote: »
    I know this is probably a bit late but I noticed in one of the grind school manuals (can't say which one obviously) that they have made a very confusing mistake in respect of defences to Article 34 TFEU (quantitative restrictions and MEQRs).

    Basically, the manual says that the defences to indistinctly applicable measures (Cassis di Dijon) are the "mandatory requirements" and Article 36 defences. This is wrong.

    The defences for distinctly applicable measures are listed under Article 36.
    The defences for indistinctly applicable measures are the "mandatory requirements", listed in Cassis.

    This is a somewhat artificial split (as they both cover things like public health) but I thought I'd note this in case that helps anyone.

    Understandable spot but they're not wrong, Wurmser case clarified that for 34 distinctly you only have 36 but for indistinctly you have both avenues :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 21 GingerAleSnail


    lawless11 wrote: »
    I wonder aha. It must exist I reckon. I feel totally lost and incapable :-D. So I'm not one of them. Feeling like I know nothing (like Jon).

    Exhausted, cannot make connections or sense at this stage


  • Registered Users Posts: 81 ✭✭david_etc


    Understandable spot but they're not wrong, Wurmser case clarified that for 34 distinctly you only have 36 but for indistinctly you have both avenues :)

    Oh, thank you for that. Weird that my manual didn't make a big deal of that. Thanks for correcting me.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,770 ✭✭✭ArthurDayne


    Having to cut topics for equity drastically. All I have time to learn is injunctions, tracing, 3 certainties, charitable incl. cy pres, SP + 2 back ups. What would people recommend as 2 easy-to-learn back up topics?
    Trustees Duties is a very straightforward topic -- only Duty to exercise proper discretion, duty not to make a profit, and duty to invest ever come up really.
    Constructive Trusts isn't long and is due to pop up.  Just focus on Knowing Receipt, Dishonest Assistance and New Model Constructive trusts -- these are the only topics which have come up for it.
    Aside from those -- Secret Trusts might be a due a run out and is a short chapter.


  • Registered Users Posts: 118 ✭✭Jenosul


    Having to cut topics for equity drastically. All I have time to learn is injunctions, tracing, 3 certainties, charitable incl. cy pres, SP + 2 back ups. What would people recommend as 2 easy-to-learn back up topics?

    Trusteeship
    Injunctions
    Maximums might be half a question
    I did undue influence wives and bank only really comes up in exam papers. Not sure if it will come up but fingers crossed.
    Like you I picked and must cram charitable trust cu pres. 3 certainties

    ðŸ™ðŸ™ðŸ™ good luck 🀠to everyone!


  • Registered Users Posts: 293 ✭✭Tony_TwoLegs


    Call me a cynic, but why must we sit an EU Law exam. There's merit in the other 7. Maybe that's the sleep deprived side of me lashing out .... Administrative law would be more useful as an 8th (mandatory at Kings Inn)


  • Registered Users Posts: 233 ✭✭jewels652


    Best of luck to those sitting EU this morning.


  • Registered Users Posts: 294 ✭✭Vegetarian2017


    Best of luck everyone! It feels sooo good to be freeðŸ˜ðŸ˜ Not long for you all now


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 140 ✭✭sapphire309


    Would anyone have a sample answer on Tracing for Equity they could share with me? Just realised my notes are only a page and a half long and barely covers the general principles


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement