Czech Bar Aptitude Test common mistakes
Czech Bar Aptitude Test · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
In civil-law questions on limitation (promlčení), the candidate treats expiry of the limitation period as extinguishing the right itself, so they answer that the debt 'zanikl' and the creditor can no longer sue, instead of stating that the claim becomes unenforceable only if the debtor raises the objection (námitka promlčení) and that the underlying right persists.
Everyday language ('the claim lapsed') and the lay intuition that time kills a right are stronger than the doctrinal distinction between natural and civil obligation; candidates memorize the lengths of periods (3 years, 10 years for immovables) but skip the effect of expiry, which is the part actually tested in case scenarios.
What to do instead
For every limitation question, answer in three steps: (1) does the period run and when does it start; (2) has it expired; (3) what is the procedural consequence, namely that the court may not consider it ex officio and the debtor must plead it, and that a voluntarily performed debt cannot be reclaimed. Drill ten short scenarios where you must say who must do what to make limitation operative.
In inheritance questions the candidate distributes the estate strictly by intestate shares and ignores the forced share (povinný díl) and the position of disinheritance, so a will leaving everything to one child is treated as fully valid and the other children get nothing.
Candidates learn the intestate classes (dědické třídy) as a list and then apply them mechanically; the interaction between testamentary freedom and the protected share of descendants is a separate doctrine that is easy to skip when revising under time pressure.
What to do instead
Build a one-page decision tree: is there a will or contract; who are the intestate heirs; who are the forced heirs and what fraction applies to each (with the age-based differentiation); can a will or disinheritance reduce it; what is the remedy (reduction of gifts, payment of the forced share). Run it on five fact patterns mixing a will, a disinherited child and a lifetime gift.
In criminal-law questions the candidate confuses the stages of the offence (příprava, pokus, dokonání) and the rules on when preparation is punishable, answering that any preparation is criminal, or that withdrawal from an attempt (zánik trestnosti pokusu) requires only an internal change of mind rather than active steps to avert the result.
The statutory provisions on attempt and preparation are short and look intuitive, so candidates read them once; the exceptions (preparation punishable only where the special part says so; effective remorse requiring voluntary abandonment and averting or reporting) are exactly the parts that appear in scenario questions.
What to do instead
Memorize the structure as a chain with the trigger conditions written beside each link: preparation only where expressly penalized; attempt begins when the offender proceeds to action capable of achieving the result; punishability of attempt lapses on voluntary abandonment plus averting the result or, where the act was already reported, notifying the authority. Test it on scenarios where the offender stops on his own versus because the police arrived.
In criminal-procedure questions the candidate mixes up the grounds and the authority for detention and custody, answering that police may hold a person for 48 hours and that a court decides on custody within that same period, instead of distinguishing police detention (24 hours, with release or delivery to court) from the court's decision on custody (within 48 hours of delivery, with the overall statutory time limits).
The numbers 24 and 48 sit close together in the Code and candidates memorize them as a pair without attaching each to its actor and its starting point; exam questions deliberately shift the starting event to test exactly this.
What to do instead
Draw a timeline with three anchors: arrest, delivery to court, court decision, and write the actor and the maximum interval on each arrow. Then answer practice questions by first naming the actor and the trigger event before quoting any number. Also learn the separate limits for the duration of custody and the review obligations.
In civil-procedure questions the candidate treats the appellate court as able to review anything, so they answer that an appeal allows full re-examination of facts and new evidence, ignoring the principle of limited review and the rules on what may be newly alleged, and they confuse appeal (odvolání) with extraordinary remedies such as cassation and constitutional complaint.
The remedy chapters are long and read as lists of deadlines; candidates learn the deadlines but not the scope of review, and the everyday meaning of 'appeal' suggests a fresh trial.
What to do instead
For each remedy build a card with four fields: against what decision, within what period and to whom, on what grounds (law and/or facts), and what the deciding body may do (confirm, change, quash and remand). Compare the cards side by side; the differences are what the questions target. Add the rule on new facts and evidence in appeal and on the binding effect of a remand.
In enforcement questions the candidate confuses execution with enforcement (exekuce) and picks the wrong authority, answering that the bailiff decides on the substantive claim or that the court's enforcement order is the same document as the bailiff's execution order, and they miss the grounds for stopping execution (odklad) versus suspending it.
Two parallel regimes governed by different statutes create near-identical vocabulary; candidates study one and assume the other mirrors it, and they rarely trace which document must exist before which step.
What to do instead
Map the two regimes in a two-column table: legal basis, who acts, what title is required, how the debtor is notified, what remedies exist (objection to execution, motion to stop, appeal), and which body rules on each. Then rehearse a single fact pattern twice, once under each regime, and note where the answers diverge.
In commercial-law questions the candidate applies the general Civil Code rules on representation and on the validity of resolutions to a company's bodies without checking the Business Corporations Act, so they answer that a director can bind the company beyond the scope of his powers because internal limits do not affect third parties, without noting the statutory limits on acting for the company and the consequences for the company and the director.
The Civil Code is studied first and its general part feels like the default; the special statute's deviations are scattered and are learned as exceptions rather than as the operative rule, so they are forgotten under exam pressure.
What to do instead
For each body (general meeting, statutory body, supervisory board) write the statutory allocation of powers, the rules on representation, the effect of exceeding powers, and the invalidity regime for resolutions. Mark every point where the special act departs from the general Civil Code, since those departures are the examinable content.
In administrative-law questions the candidate treats the administrative authority's first-instance decision as immediately enforceable and final, and answers that an appeal has suspensive effect in every case or, conversely, that it never does; they also confuse a remedy within the administrative body (appeal, objection) with judicial review by the administrative court and its time limits.
The general rules on appeal and on suspensive effect sit in a procedural code with several statutory exceptions; candidates learn the default and then overgeneralize it, and the vocabulary of 'remedy' blurs the boundary between administrative and judicial review.
What to do instead
Learn the appeal chapter as default plus exceptions: what the default effect is, which provisions exclude or grant suspensive effect, who decides on it, and the deadlines for both the appeal and the administrative action. Make a separate card for judicial review stating the conditions of admissibility, the time limit, and the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies.
In constitutional-law questions the candidate answers that any interference with a fundamental right is unconstitutional, or that the Charter applies to private disputes exactly as it does to the state, without applying the proportionality test or the distinction between the state's negative and positive obligations.
Rights are learned as a list of guarantees with their textual wording; the doctrinal framework for limiting rights (statutory basis, legitimate aim, proportionality, preservation of the essence) is abstract and is skipped in favour of memorizing article numbers.
What to do instead
Practice a fixed four-step proportionality template and apply it aloud to concrete restrictions (a demonstration ban, a data request, a speech restriction), naming the right, the statutory basis, the aim, and the necessity and balancing steps. Separately learn the horizontal effect question and the role of the Constitutional Court, including the conditions for a constitutional complaint.
In labour-law questions the candidate treats termination as valid whenever the employer gives a reason in the letter, without checking that the statutory ground is correctly identified, that the factual basis existed at the time, and that the notice period and delivery rules were observed; they also answer that an invalid dismissal leaves the employee without any claim.
The grounds for dismissal are a closed list but are remembered by keywords; candidates match a keyword loosely and stop there, and the procedural requirements (delivery, notice period, prior consent of a union or of a protected employee) are treated as formalities rather than as conditions of validity.
What to do instead
For every termination scenario run a checklist: which statutory ground is invoked and does the fact match it exactly; does the factual basis subsist at the moment of termination; was the document delivered validly; was the notice period correctly computed; was any prior consent or consultation required; what is the employee's remedy (invalidity, reinstatement, compensation). Apply the checklist to immediate termination and to termination by agreement as well.
In tax-law questions the candidate treats the tax base as the accounting profit and ignores the adjustments between accounting and tax (non-deductible expenses, exempt income, timing differences), and they answer that registration is optional or that a loss can always be carried forward unchanged.
Accounting and tax are studied as separate subjects and the bridge between them is a short chapter; candidates who know double-entry assume the profit figure is the answer, and the conditions attached to loss carry-forward and to deductibility are easy to overlook.
What to do instead
Take one model company and compute the tax base line by line from the profit figure, listing each adjustment and its legal basis; then vary one fact (a late payment, a gift, a receivable write-off) and recompute. Learn the conditions for loss carry-forward and the rules on deductibility of specific expense categories as a checklist rather than as prose.
In professional-ethics questions the candidate answers that a conflict of interest is cured by informing the client, or that confidentiality ends when the representation ends, instead of applying the rules on refusing or terminating representation, on the duty to decline a matter, and on the continuing nature of the duty of confidentiality.
Ethics is revised last and from a summary, so candidates reduce it to slogans ('inform the client', 'keep secrets'); the specific duties to decline, to terminate, and to obtain informed consent, and the exceptions to confidentiality, are not internalized as decision rules.
What to do instead
Learn ethics as a set of decision points: when must I decline, when may I terminate, what must I disclose to the client about fees and strategy, what may I reveal and to whom, how do I handle client money. For each point write the rule, the trigger, and the consequence of breach, and apply it to a short scenario involving a former client on the opposite side.
In drafting tasks the candidate produces a submission that states the facts and the desired outcome but omits the statutory basis for the claim, the specific evidence offered for each alleged fact, and a clear petit, so the document is formally complete but substantively unpersuasive.
Candidates write as they would explain the case to a colleague, in narrative order; the requirement to link each factual allegation to offered evidence and to a legal ground is a discipline that is only acquired by practising the structure, not by reading judgments.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed skeleton for every submission: parties and court, designation of the claim with its legal basis, chronological facts each followed by the evidence proving it, legal assessment applying the norm to those facts, and a numbered petit that is capable of being granted. Draft three submissions from the same fact pattern and compare them against the skeleton before polishing language.