ENAM Magistrature Cycle A common mistakes
ENAM Magistrature Cycle A · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
On a procédure civile question about the effects of a jugement, the candidate recites the rule of substantive law (e.g. the conditions for divorce) instead of answering on the procedural mechanism asked (délais de recours, autorité de la chose jugée, exécution provisoire), producing an answer that is legally correct but off-question.
Candidates revise the Code civil more than the Code de procédure civile and reflexively reach for the substantive rule they know best; the question's procedural framing (compétence, recevabilité, voie de recours) is read quickly and not decoded before writing.
What to do instead
Before writing, underline the operative words of the question (who asks, at what stage, which procedural act is challenged) and draft a one-line 'what is being asked' note; train on past subjects by classifying each question as fond vs procédure before answering.
In droit pénal, the candidate answers a question on a specific infraction by listing its penalties without establishing all the éléments constitutifs (élément légal, matériel, moral) one by one, so a partially wrong qualification goes undetected and the reasoning collapses if one element is missing.
Under time pressure, candidates jump to the sanction because it is the most memorable part of the course; the reflex of structured qualification is not yet automatic.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed grid for every infraction: texte d'incrimination, élément matériel, élément moral, causes d'irresponsabilité ou d'excuse, tentative, complicité, peines; apply it aloud to three infractions per revision session until it becomes reflex.
In contentieux administratif, the candidate confuses the compétences of the juge administratif and the juge judiciaire, or mixes up plein contentieux and excès de pouvoir, and answers a question on the appropriate recours by proposing the wrong jurisdiction or the wrong type of recours.
The distinction between les deux ordres and between les types de recours is taught early and assumed acquired; candidates memorise case outcomes without the underlying classification grid.
What to do instead
Build and memorise a two-entry decision tree (ordre de juridiction, then type de recours) and rehearse it on ten short fact patterns; for each, state the juridiction compétente, the recours, and the pouvoirs du juge in one sentence.
In droit commercial et procédures collectives, the candidate treats the procedures collectives as a single block and cannot place the candidate in the right phase (sauvegarde, redressement, liquidation), so the answer applies the wrong régime (e.g. période suspecte, nullités, sort des contrats en cours) to the facts.
The course is dense and candidates memorise definitions without the chronological logic of the procedure; the trigger facts (cessation des paiements, difficultés insurmontables) are not used as diagnostic markers.
What to do instead
Draw a timeline of the procedure with the entry conditions and the consequences attached to each phase; practise by reading fact patterns and stating only the phase, the date of cessation des paiements and the applicable régime before drafting any answer.
In droit du travail, the candidate answers a licenciement question by asserting that the licenciement is 'abusif' or 'injustifié' without identifying the applicable cause réelle et sérieuse test, the procedure followed, and the distinct consequences (indemnités, nullité, réintégration), so the conclusion is asserted rather than demonstrated.
Everyday media language ('licenciement abusif') replaces legal qualification; candidates lack a procedure-then-fond reflex and conflate the two controls.
What to do instead
For every labour fact pattern, answer in two separate blocks: régularité de la procédure (convocation, entretien, notification, délais) then motif (cause réelle et sérieuse, faute grave, inaptitude); attach the sanction to each defect found.
In droit constitutionnel et institutions judiciaires, the candidate describes the organisation of the courts or the hierarchy of norms from memory with approximate terminology, mixing up Conseil constitutionnel and Conseil d'État, or QPC and contrôle a priori, and produces a plausible but institutionally false statement.
This domain is often revised last and through summaries; the vocabulary is close and candidates rely on impressions rather than precise institutional facts.
What to do instead
Maintain a one-page terminology table (institution, composition, saisine, nature de la décision, effet) and self-test by writing definitions from memory, then checking; ban any institution name from an answer unless its competence has been verified.
In droit international privé, the candidate resolves a conflict-of-laws question by directly applying French law without first identifying the rule de conflit (e.g. loi applicable au statut personnel, au contrat, à la responsabilité) and without addressing the condition of the foreign element.
The reflex of the domestic lawyer is to apply the rule of the forum; candidates under-train the method (qualification, règle de conflit, renvoi, ordre public) because it feels abstract.
What to do instead
Impose a written four-step method for every private international law question: élément d'extranéité, qualification, règle de conflit, limite (ordre public, fraude); do not write a substantive rule until the applicable law has been identified.
In déontologie et éthique judiciaire, the candidate answers a scenario involving a conflict of interest, secret professionnel or impartiality by invoking general morality ('il faut être impartial') instead of citing the specific professional obligation and the concrete conduct it requires or prohibits.
Candidates treat ethics as common sense and do not revise the written texts and codes of conduct; they underestimate that this domain is graded on precise obligations.
What to do instead
Learn the key obligations by name (impartialité, secret professionnel, devoir de réserve, conflit d'intérêts, interdiction de la prise illégale d'intérêts) and, for each scenario, state the obligation, the text or principle, the breach, and the required conduct.
In culture générale et expression écrite, the candidate produces a long unstructured development with no introduction stating the problem, no announced plan, and no conclusion answering the question, so a substantively correct answer loses marks on form and coherence.
The pressure of the timed exam pushes candidates to write everything they know; planning is skipped as a perceived waste of time and no template is internalised.
What to do instead
Rehearse a fixed 5-minute planning routine (reformulate the question, choose two or three axes, write the plan) and a fixed skeleton (introduction with problématique and annonce du plan, two or three titled parts, conclusion answering the question); time two full essays under exam conditions before the test.
Across all domains, the candidate cites a text or a case by approximate reference ('un arrêt de la Cour de cassation', 'le Code prévoit que') without the article number or the date and formation of the decision, and cannot be credited for a legal basis even when the rule stated is correct.
Revision is done from summaries and notes that omit references, and candidates fear citing wrongly more than citing vaguely, so they hedge.
What to do instead
Build a personal reference sheet of the twenty most examinable articles and leading decisions with exact numbers and dates; in answers, cite only what is on the sheet, and where the reference is uncertain, state the rule without inventing a reference rather than hedging with a vague attribution.