Pravosudni ispit common mistakes
Pravosudni ispit · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
When a civil claim is pleaded, the candidate states a single legal basis and then argues only that basis, ignoring alternative or cumulative bases (e.g., pleading only contract when unjust enrichment or delictual liability would also lie, or missing that a claim can be both contractual and tortious).
Candidates learn doctrine topic-by-topic and mentally file each fact pattern under one heading; exam pressure reinforces the first label that comes to mind, and they do not run a disciplined 'what else could this be?' check before writing.
What to do instead
Before drafting, build a short checklist of every possible cause of action the facts support, note the elements of each and the limitation period for each, then expressly state in the answer which bases are pleaded, which are pleaded in the alternative, and why. Practise by re-labelling past fact patterns under at least two headings.
In civil procedure, the candidate confuses the procedural requirements for a particular remedy with its substantive elements, for example treating the conditions for issuing a payment order, an interim measure, or a default judgment as if they were the merits of the claim, or omitting to address standing, jurisdiction, and time limits as separate gates.
Substantive and procedural law are studied as separate subjects, so candidates lack a mental model of a case as a sequence of procedural gates; they answer the substantive question and assume the procedural route is obvious.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed pre-answer ritual: identify the court, subject-matter and territorial jurisdiction, standing, procedural capacity, time limits, and the specific procedural instrument sought, and write one sentence on each before turning to the merits. Drill this on short procedural scenarios until it is automatic.
In criminal law, the candidate identifies the offence but skips the full structured analysis of actus reus, mens rea, causation, and then the grounds excluding unlawfulness and guilt, or applies defences without checking whether their statutory conditions are actually met on the facts.
Candidates memorise offence definitions as labels and underestimate how much of the mark lies in the layered structure; defences are attractive because they feel like a shortcut to a conclusion.
What to do instead
Write every criminal answer in an explicit three-tier structure (elements of the offence, unlawfulness, culpability) and state for each tier which facts satisfy or defeat it. For each defence invoked, list its statutory conditions as a numbered checklist and tick or cross them against the facts.
The candidate treats a constitutional or administrative question as a pure legality question and fails to address the hierarchy of norms and the specific review standard, for example not distinguishing constitutionality from legality, or not identifying the correct type of administrative act and the correct remedy against it.
These subjects are taught as abstract principles, and candidates do not practise the concrete move of locating a contested measure in the normative hierarchy and selecting the matching review procedure.
What to do instead
For every scenario, write a two-line 'norm map': which norm, at which level, adopted by which body, reviewed by which court under which procedure. Then answer. Build a table of administrative act types against available remedies and memorise it as a lookup, not as prose.
In labour and social security law, the candidate applies general civil-law rules to an employment relationship without checking the mandatory protective provisions, or answers a social security question without identifying the insured event, the qualifying conditions, and the competent body.
Employment and social security law look like familiar contract and status questions, so candidates default to general rules and overlook the mandatory minimum standards that override party autonomy.
What to do instead
Keep a one-page list of mandatory employment protections (working time, leave, termination protection, pay) and check each against the facts. For social security, always answer in the order: insured event, qualifying period and conditions, benefit calculation, competent body, appeal route.
In commercial and company law, the candidate mixes up the company as a legal person with its members and organs, attributing shareholder acts to the company or vice versa, and fails to identify which organ has competence to take the relevant decision and what form that decision must take.
The separate legal personality concept is stated in textbooks but not practised, and candidates narrate facts using everyday language in which 'the company decided' blurs the organ that acted.
What to do instead
In every company-law answer, name the actor precisely (general meeting, supervisory board, management board, director, shareholder) and state the required resolution, majority, and registration step. Where liability is at issue, separate the company's liability, the organ member's liability, and any piercing of the veil.
In family and inheritance law, the candidate ignores the interaction between the two, for example answering an inheritance question without checking the surviving spouse's and children's forced shares, or answering a family-property question without tracing how that property passes on death.
The two subjects are examined separately in study, and candidates do not build the habit of running a family-property analysis through to the succession consequences.
What to do instead
For any family or succession scenario, draw the family tree, then mark on it the marital property regime, the forced heirs and their minimum shares, and the disposable portion. Answer only after the diagram is complete; the diagram also reveals conflicts between wills and forced-share rules.
On professional conduct questions, the candidate gives a purely moral answer ('the lawyer should act honourably') without citing the specific duty engaged, the concrete rule, and the practical step required, and does not address conflicts of interest, confidentiality, or the duty to decline or withdraw from a mandate.
Ethics is often revised last and treated as common sense, so candidates do not learn the rulebook's structure and cannot map a scenario onto a named duty.
What to do instead
Memorise the code of conduct as a list of named duties (competence, loyalty, conflict of interest, confidentiality, fees, advertising, relations with the court and opposing counsel). For each scenario, name the duty, quote its substance, state the required action, and state the consequence of breach.
In European Union and international law questions, the candidate asserts that a national rule 'breaches EU law' without identifying the relevant freedom or provision, the direct-effect or interpretation route, and the procedural consequences before the national court, or cites international instruments without checking ratification and direct applicability.
Candidates learn EU law as institutional description rather than as an argumentative method, and they assume international treaties automatically apply domestically.
What to do instead
Use a fixed EU-law chain: relevant Treaty provision or secondary act, scope, restriction, justification and proportionality, then remedies and the role of the national court. For international law, always state signature, ratification, publication, and domestic effect before relying on a provision.
In practical drafting tasks, the candidate writes an essay about the case instead of the required document, omitting the formal components (designation of the document, parties and their representatives, the operative request, the statement of facts, the legal grounds, and the signature block), and does not manage time so that the final document is unfinished.
Candidates revise doctrine and never rehearse the physical form of pleadings and decisions, and under time pressure they start writing prose before fixing the document's skeleton.
What to do instead
Memorise one skeleton per document type (claim, appeal, contract, will, judgment) and in the exam write the headings and operative request first, then fill the reasoning. Practise at least one full timed drafting exercise per document type and self-mark against the skeleton.