Czech Bar Exam common mistakes
Czech Bar Exam · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
When a civil-law question mixes a general provision with a special one (e.g. general limitation period under the Civil Code versus a special limitation rule for a specific claim), the candidate applies the general rule without first checking whether a special rule displaces it, and cites only the general section number.
Candidates memorise the general part of the Civil Code (občanský zákoník) first and rehearse it most, so under time pressure the general provision is the one that surfaces; the special provisions are scattered across the individual contract types and are rarely drilled as a comparison set.
What to do instead
Build a one-page 'general vs special' comparison table per topic (limitation, liability for defects, withdrawal from contract). In every answer, state the general rule, then explicitly test whether a special rule applies and say why it does or does not; cite both provisions even when only one governs.
In family-law scenarios the candidate answers only the divorce question asked and ignores the mandatory connected issues - settlement of the minor children's custody and maintenance, division of the community property of spouses (společné jmění manželů), and the effect on the family home - that the fact pattern clearly implies.
Exam questions are phrased narrowly ('can the marriage be dissolved?'), and candidates treat the question mark as the boundary of the answer, forgetting that Czech family law requires the court to decide the children's arrangements as part of the divorce and that the community property must be addressed separately.
What to do instead
For every family-law fact pattern, run a fixed checklist before writing: form of divorce (agreed vs contested), children's custody, contact and maintenance, spousal maintenance, community property settlement, housing. Answer the asked question first, then add the connected issues in one short paragraph each.
In criminal-law questions the candidate jumps straight to the merits of the offence and never checks the procedural preconditions - whether the act is time-barred (promlčení trestní odpovědnosti), whether the statute of limitations was interrupted or suspended, and whether the case falls under the special rules for juveniles or legal persons.
Substantive definitions of offences are the most rehearsed material, while limitation periods and the special regimes sit in the general part and in separate statutes (juvenile justice, criminal liability of legal persons) and are easily skipped when the facts describe an obvious crime.
What to do instead
Open every criminal-law answer with a three-line 'gate check': limitation period and any interruption/suspension, age and capacity of the offender, and whether a legal person or juvenile regime applies. Only then analyse the elements of the offence.
The candidate confuses the stages of criminal procedure - preparatory proceedings, the decision to bring a charge (obžaloba), the main trial, and appeal - and attributes acts to the wrong body, for example having the police decide on a complaint against a decision of the public prosecutor, or treating the return of the case for further investigation as an ordinary appeal remedy.
The procedural code is learned as a list of institutions rather than as a timeline with actors, so under exam pressure the functions of police, public prosecutor and court blur together.
What to do instead
Draw the procedural timeline once, with a column for 'who acts' and a column for 'what remedy lies against it and to whom'. Redo it from memory before the exam; answer procedural questions by locating the stage first, then naming the actor.
In administrative-law questions the candidate ignores the distinction between the substantive administrative decision, the review of that decision by the administrative authority itself (řádné opravné prostředky such as rozklad or odvolání), and judicial review by the administrative courts, and mixes up the deadlines and the authority competent at each step.
All three layers use similar vocabulary and the deadlines differ, so candidates who have not built a layered map default to whichever remedy they remember best.
What to do instead
Memorise a three-layer diagram (decision → internal review → administrative court action) with the deadline and the deciding body written on each arrow. For each question, state which layer is being asked about before discussing anything else.
When a constitutional-rights question involves a conflict between two protected interests, the candidate asserts that one right 'wins' without applying the proportionality test (proporcionalita) - necessity, suitability and the least intrusive means - and without citing the constitutional anchoring of the right.
Constitutional law is often revised as a list of charter articles, and the balancing methodology is learned abstractly, so candidates reproduce slogans ('freedom of expression prevails') instead of structured reasoning.
What to do instead
Practise a fixed four-step template: identify the right and its article in the Charter, identify the competing interest, apply suitability–necessity–proportionality in the narrow sense, and conclude with the least intrusive alternative. Use the template even when the answer seems obvious.
In commercial-law questions the candidate applies the general Civil Code rules on contracts to relationships between entrepreneurs without checking the Business Corporations Act (zákon o obchodních korporacích) and the specific rules on representation, conflict of interest, and liability of statutory bodies.
The Civil Code is the default frame and the Commercial Corporations Act is a separate statute with its own logic; candidates who revise the Civil Code last-minute over-apply it.
What to do instead
For every commercial-law fact pattern, first classify the entity (s.r.o., a.s., cooperative) and the actor (statutory body, shareholder, proxy). Then check the specific statute for that actor before falling back to the Civil Code; note explicitly when the special statute prevails.
In labour-law questions the candidate answers whether a dismissal was valid without distinguishing the statutory grounds for termination (výpověď) from immediate termination (okamžité zrušení), and without addressing the procedural requirements - written form, delivery, works council consultation where required, and the two-month limitation for challenging the dismissal.
The grounds are memorable and the procedure is administrative detail, so candidates focus on 'was there a reason?' and forget 'was the form and timing right?'.
What to do instead
For every termination question, run a two-column check: substantive ground (which statutory letter of the provision?) and procedural validity (form, delivery, consultation, deadline). Conclude separately on each column and state the consequence of a defect in either.
In civil-procedure questions the candidate treats the enforcement of judgments (exekuce) as a continuation of the litigation and applies the procedural code to it, rather than the separate Enforcement Code and the role of the enforcement officer (soudní exekutor) and the court's authorization (pověření).
Enforcement feels like 'the end of the same case', so the litigation framework is carried over; the distinct statute and the split of competences between court and enforcement officer are under-revised.
What to do instead
Learn a short contrast list: which body does what at the enforcement stage, which statute governs each act, and which remedies (odvolání, návrh na zastavení exekuce) lie where. Answer enforcement questions only after naming the governing statute.
In legal-ethics questions the candidate answers the substantive legal issue correctly but never addresses the conflict of interest, confidentiality, or the duty to refuse representation, and does not identify the disciplinary consequence under the bar rules.
Ethics is treated as a soft topic and revised by reading the code once; candidates do not practise spotting the ethical layer hidden inside an ordinary-looking civil or criminal fact pattern.
What to do instead
After answering any fact pattern, spend two minutes on an 'ethics overlay': conflict of interest, confidentiality and its limits, client funds, advertising, and the competent disciplinary body. Write one sentence on each that is engaged by the facts, citing the relevant professional rule.
In EU-law questions the candidate states that a national rule 'breaches EU law' without identifying the type of EU act, whether it has direct effect, whether the national provision falls within the scope of EU law, and which procedural route (preliminary reference, state liability, direct effect before a national court) is available.
EU law is revised as a set of doctrines in the abstract, and candidates do not practise applying them to a concrete national measure, so the analysis stops at 'it conflicts'.
What to do instead
Use a fixed sequence: identify the act and its nature (regulation, directive, Treaty article), test direct effect and the horizontal/vertical dimension, check the scope, then name the remedy and the forum. Write the sequence out for three landmark situations before the exam.
In tax-law questions the candidate computes the tax base but ignores the procedural side - registration duties, the tax return deadline, the assessment procedure, and the remedies against a tax assessment - and confuses the substantive tax statutes with the Tax Procedure Code (daňový řád).
Tax law is perceived as arithmetic, so candidates practise rates and bases and leave the procedural statute to a quick read, even though exam questions often turn on deadlines and remedies.
What to do instead
For every tax scenario, split the answer into 'substantive' (which tax, what base, what rate, which exemption) and 'procedural' (registration, return, assessment, appeal deadline and body). Keep a one-page deadline table for the main taxes and revise it weekly.