Belgian Advocate Aptitude Test common mistakes
Belgian Advocate Aptitude Test · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
On civil procedure questions, the candidate states that a claim is admissible without checking whether the defendant has raised a procedural exception (e.g., lack of jurisdiction, inadmissibility) and without applying the rules on standing and interest.
Candidates learn the conditions of a civil claim abstractly but do not systematically screen the facts for preliminary objections. Under time pressure they jump to the merits and overlook that admissibility is a separate, threshold issue that can be raised at any stage.
What to do instead
Before analysing the merits, use a checklist: (1) Does the claimant have standing (belang, hoedanigheid)? (2) Is the claim within the jurisdiction of the court? (3) Has the defendant raised any procedural exception? (4) Are the formal requirements of the summons met? Answer each in one sentence, then move to the merits only if all are satisfied.
In criminal law, the candidate conflates the objective elements of an offence with the subjective element (moral element) and fails to separately analyse justification grounds and excuses.
Textbook definitions often present the offence as a single block, so candidates memorise the definition without breaking it into constituent parts. They then treat intention as automatic once the act is proven, and they forget that justification (e.g., self-defence) negates unlawfulness rather than guilt.
What to do instead
For every offence, write three separate headings: (1) material elements (act, causation, result); (2) moral element (intention or negligence, with the specific form required); (3) grounds of justification or excuse. Under each heading, list the facts that support or negate it. This forces a structured analysis and prevents merging the elements.
In company law, the candidate applies the rules on director liability without distinguishing between liability towards the company, towards third parties, and towards creditors, and without checking the applicable limitation periods.
Candidates memorise the general article on director liability but do not map the different claimants and the different legal bases (contract, tort, company law). They also overlook that some claims are subject to short limitation periods or require prior notice to the company.
What to do instead
Create a three-column table: claimant (company / shareholder / third party / creditor), legal basis (company code article, tort, contract), and limitation period. For each scenario, fill in the table before writing the answer. This ensures the correct rule and time bar are applied.
In labour law, the candidate treats the termination of an employment contract as a single act and fails to distinguish between dismissal with notice, dismissal for serious cause, and termination by mutual consent, each with different formal and substantive requirements.
Candidates learn the general rules on termination but do not practise applying them to varied fact patterns. They also forget that the burden of proof for serious cause lies with the employer and that procedural steps (e.g., hearing the employee) may be mandatory.
What to do instead
For each termination scenario, answer four questions in order: (1) What is the legal basis for termination? (2) What formal steps are required (written notice, statement of reasons, hearing)? (3) Who bears the burden of proof? (4) What are the consequences of invalidity? Write the answers before discussing compensation.
In constitutional and administrative law, the candidate challenges the legality of an administrative act without first verifying whether the act is final, whether the applicant has an interest, and whether the time limit for appeal has been respected.
Candidates focus on the substantive grounds (ultra vires, proportionality) and skip the admissibility conditions. They also confuse the suspensive and annulment effects of an appeal, leading to incorrect advice on urgency.
What to do instead
Use the mnemonic F-I-T: Final act? Interest? Time limit? Answer each in one sentence. Only if all three are satisfied, proceed to the substantive grounds. Then state separately whether a request for suspension is possible and what conditions apply.
In tax law, the candidate calculates taxable income without applying the correct tax base, the correct rates, and the correct deductions in the right order, and without distinguishing between resident and non-resident taxpayers.
Tax law is formulaic, but candidates often memorise rates without understanding the structure of the tax base. They also overlook that deductions may be capped or subject to conditions, and that residence status changes the scope of taxation.
What to do instead
For every tax question, write a step-by-step computation: (1) determine residence status; (2) identify gross income items; (3) apply exemptions; (4) apply deductions in the statutory order; (5) apply the rate schedule; (6) apply tax credits. Show each step with figures, even if the final answer is approximate.
In judicial law and deontology, the candidate gives a general answer about professional secrecy without identifying the specific exceptions, the persons bound, and the consequences of breach.
Candidates treat deontology as common sense and do not study the detailed code of conduct. They therefore miss that professional secrecy is not absolute and that certain disclosures are permitted or required by law.
What to do instead
Memorise the key articles of the judicial code on professional secrecy, listing: (1) who is bound; (2) what is covered; (3) statutory exceptions (e.g., reporting money laundering, preventing imminent harm); (4) disciplinary consequences. For each scenario, apply this list explicitly.
In European Union law, the candidate analyses a question about the free movement of goods without distinguishing between discriminatory and non-discriminatory measures, and without applying the proportionality test to justification grounds.
Candidates learn the broad principles but do not practise the structured analysis used by the Court of Justice. They jump to the conclusion that a measure is incompatible without checking whether it can be justified.
What to do instead
Use the four-step approach: (1) Is there a barrier to free movement? (2) Is it discriminatory or non-discriminatory? (3) Is there a justification ground (treaty or mandatory requirement)? (4) Is the measure proportionate? Write each step separately and cite the leading case type (not case names) for each step.
In private international law, the candidate determines the applicable law without first characterising the legal relationship (contract, tort, family) and without checking the operation of renvoi or public policy.
Candidates focus on the connecting factors but forget that characterisation determines which choice-of-law rule applies. They also overlook that the foreign law may be excluded by mandatory rules or public policy.
What to do instead
For each scenario, write: (1) characterisation of the claim; (2) the applicable choice-of-law rule (e.g., Rome I, Rome II, national code); (3) the connecting factor; (4) the resulting law; (5) any mandatory rules or public policy exception. Only then apply the law to the facts.
In legal methodology and case analysis, the candidate summarises the facts of a case without identifying the legal question, the holding, and the reasoning, and fails to apply the ratio to a new set of facts.
Candidates are used to reading cases for content rather than structure. They therefore produce narrative answers that do not demonstrate analytical skills. They also confuse obiter dicta with the ratio decidendi.
What to do instead
Use the IRAC method for every case analysis: Issue (the legal question), Rule (the relevant legal norm), Application (the facts of the case and the court's reasoning), Conclusion (the holding). Then, for a new scenario, repeat IRAC using the extracted rule. Practise on five cases until the structure is automatic.