ABCM
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
I have exams like everyone, starting next week for me. I am not that bad at learning the names of cases, but I have to know this infamous one:

Internationale Handelsgesellschaft v. Einfur-und Vorratsstelle fur Getreide und Futtermittel [1970]

#EU law am I right?

It’s unlikely the name of the case will be in the question. It’s an essay answer based exam.

Anyway, any tips on how people learn off monsters like these. I have broken it down into syllables but there are too many even for that lol. I might have to come up with a poem or something.

Thanks lol
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
Write it down on a piece of paper 30 times.

You don't have to remember the whole case name. You could give the name of one of the parties, abbreviate parts. You're not expected to give diacritics and law report citations; you're just trying to give the reader enough info so that they know what case you're on about.
0
reply
Forum User
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
Why don't you just call it Solange I like everyone else? I agree absolutely with Notoriety's final sentence.
0
reply
ABCM
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#4
Unfortunately, my lecturer was very clear that we need to write and know the whole thing. But I can refer to is as Internationale Handelsgesellschaft after that. I don't know why she's that pernickety about it. My guess is it's because we only need to know 4 cases for the EU law question of the exam and for this case we don't have to give the facts of the case in extreme detail, it's more about why its important. We don't need years thankfully but if we know them to throw them in. She's quite old school and strict in ways, though I have a soft spot for her really.

My college isn't semesterised so we don't have any exams until May but we had an supervised MCQ before Christmas and it came up on that, but that doesn't mean it won't be on our main exam.

The suggestion from Notoriety to write it out 30 times is great. I haven't done it yet for Internationale Handelsgesellschaft yet but I have a few other cases that even though they are in English they are long or mouthfuls so I did it for two of them and Van Gend En Loos and it worked a treat. Every 5th time I'd test myself to write it without looking.

The 30 times thing works in this situation because its less about trying to remember the actual case, or its facts etc. and more just being able to write the bloody thing down lol.
1
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
(Original post by ABCM)
Unfortunately, my lecturer was very clear that we need to write and know the whole thing. But I can refer to is as Internationale Handelsgesellschaft after that. I don't know why she's that pernickety about it. My guess is it's because we only need to know 4 cases for the EU law question of the exam and for this case we don't have to give the facts of the case in extreme detail, it's more about why its important. We don't need years thankfully but if we know them to throw them in. She's quite old school and strict in ways, though I have a soft spot for her really.

My college isn't semesterised so we don't have any exams until May but we had an supervised MCQ before Christmas and it came up on that, but that doesn't mean it won't be on our main exam.

The suggestion from Notoriety to write it out 30 times is great. I haven't done it yet for Internationale Handelsgesellschaft yet but I have a few other cases that even though they are in English they are long or mouthfuls so I did it for two of them and Van Gend En Loos and it worked a treat. Every 5th time I'd test myself to write it without looking.

The 30 times thing works in this situation because its less about trying to remember the actual case, or its facts etc. and more just being able to write the bloody thing down lol.
Yeah, 30 time over and over works very well. (Learnt this from my numerous detentions, and realising I retained a surprising amount of info from them!) Just to be clear, the lecturer was talking about your exams? I guess if you only have MCQ and an exam, they must have been. A very strange system; our lecturers always stressed the name wasn't that important.

Indeed, we were told facts of the case would suffice if we couldn't remember the name. But then, we had a lot of cases to learn and there might have have been one random case you read in a footnote, haven't thought about it since, but you are confident it pertains to the PQ. Here it is better to point out that you know some good law rather than repress it because you cannot remember the whole name.
0
reply
ABCM
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#6
(Original post by Notoriety)
Yeah, 30 time over and over works very well. (Learnt this from my numerous detentions, and realising I retained a surprising amount of info from them!) Just to be clear, the lecturer was talking about your exams? I guess if you only have MCQ and an exam, they must have been. A very strange system; our lecturers always stressed the name wasn't that important.

Indeed, we were told facts of the case would suffice if we couldn't remember the name. But then, we had a lot of cases to learn and there might have have been one random case you read in a footnote, haven't thought about it since, but you are confident it pertains to the PQ. Here it is better to point out that you know some good law rather than repress it because you cannot remember the whole name.
Yes, she meant the exams. We had no assignments from her. She gives us handouts for each topic and the cases, principles, definitions etc. we have to know and regurgitate are in bold. But she actually said it out loud again in reference to this case they day we did it because of its ridiculous name. We have to learn off a number of articles of the Constitution too annoyingly.

I suppose it's an introductory law module for first year undergrads so what we're doing isn't ground breaking. Some cases we don't even have to know the facts or weren't given the facts of the case and we just have to name them in reference to the principle they uphold or are related to or whatever. 99% of cases though we have to know the facts, judgment, actors involved, constitutional or legislative interpretation used etc. The only other thing we have to stipulate where relevant is the court it was in. She said in practically every class that people always mix up the ECJ and ECtHR for example.
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
They said articles, so I assume they are talking about capital-c. Maybe Treaty of Lisbon or TEU/TFEU?
0
reply
ABCM
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#8
Sorry for any confusion, I am from Ireland, so we have to use either The Constitution of Ireland or Bunreacht Na hÉireann. It doesn’t matter which we use as long as we don’t keep swapping over languages. I didn’t mention that in my question as I didn’t think it was relevant to asking about study tips. I also didn’t mean it was unexpected we have to learn off articles from it. It’s just annoying, like it’s annoying having to learn off Shakespeare quotes for an English essay. It doesn’t show you’re understanding of the material, it just shows you learned this quote off.

Like I said this is a First year undergrad Introduction to Law module, and to clarify it’s a class for students who aren’t doing Law as part of their degree, but it is relevant to it. For example, I am doing Social Policy and a number of my classmates are Business. So, what we are doing is very basic and is more focused on regurgitation as opposed to critical thinking.

As I said my university isn’t semesterised so our modules are year long. It can be broken down further but the main topics we covered are The Constitution, Legislation, EU Law, The Court System, Access to Courts, Precedent, Jurisprudence and International law. We were told to learn everything for the exam but as we only have 3 essays to write in 2 hours I am focusing on certain topics and just reading briefly over the others.

And depending on the topic your answering your question on you need to know different things about different cases. For example, some cases cross over so you might need to know different aspects about it depending on what you’re answering on. For example, for a question on the Constitution topic, we have a case, Ryan v Attorney General (1965), that we need to know for both a question on unenumerated rights, or the literal approach or Natural Law approach to interpretation of the Constitution, so you need to be able to apply the case to the question your asked.
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
I don't agree with the articles point. It is fairly common with treaties to refer to the articles, even if you're referring to a specific one, as a common noun in the lower case. With the EU, they've taken to capitalising Article and Articles, but even they are not consistent with it and UK judges do not necessarily adopt this style.

E.g. Lord Hoffmann in Wainright v Home Office [2003] UKHL 53, at para 11.

The judge recognised, however, that in the cases upon which he relied the claimant had suffered a recognised psychiatric injury. Mrs Wainwright had not. It seemed to him illogical to deny her a remedy for distress because her constitution was sufficiently robust to protect her from psychiatric injury. So the second strand of his reasoning was that the law of tort should give a remedy for any kind of distress caused by an infringement of the right of privacy protected by article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. At the time of the incident the Human Rights Act 1998 had not yet come into force but the judge considered that he was justified in adapting the common law to the Convention by analogy with the principle by which, even before the 1998 Act, the courts interpreted statutes so as to conform, if possible, to the Convention.
Recently Lord Kerr in Re Maguire [2018] UKSC 17, paras 5-6.

Following this, Mr Barlow informed the appellant that he could not act as his leading counsel. The appellant, and subsequently his current solicitors, engaged in correspondence with the Bar of Northern Ireland about this. The solicitors asserted that if Mr Barlow was not permitted to appear as the appellant’s leading counsel, this would constitute a violation of Mr Maguire’s rights under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). ...

The appellant applied for leave to issue judicial review proceedings on 9 June 2014. He claimed that the Bar Council’s decision to “impede” his choice of lead advocate violated his rights under article 6.3(c) of ECHR. He asserted that his right to choose counsel was limited only by the interests of justice test articulated in that provision. Leave to apply for judicial review was granted on 6 October 2014.
There is a similar style used for regulations, directives, Framework Decisions (e.g. EAW), and indeed EU treaties. I think you're describing an EU tradition and perhaps a US one.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Should the school day be extended to help students catch up?

Yes (96)
28.07%
No (246)
71.93%

Watched Threads

View All