EIPA common mistakes
EIPA · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
In cohesion-policy questions, quoting 2014–2020 co-financing rates and eligibility rules (e.g. a flat 50% ERDF rate) as if they applied under the 2021–2027 Common Provisions Regulation.
Revision notes are often built from older programme documents, and the two programming periods look almost identical at a glance.
What to do instead
Keep a one-page 'current framework' card tied to Regulation (EU) 2021/1060: programming period, CPR article numbers, and the specific rates the question asks about. Before answering, check which programming period the stem names.
Applying the €143,000 threshold to a sub-central contracting authority, or justifying a negotiated procedure without prior publication simply because 'there was urgency'.
The thresholds are memorised as one number, and urgency is treated as a blanket exemption rather than a strict legal condition.
What to do instead
Memorise the threshold matrix by type of authority and by supplies/services versus works, and use a short checklist for the exceptional procedures (unforeseeable urgency not attributable to the authority, prior unsuccessful procedure, etc.).
Classifying a municipal grant to a sports club or a public hospital as 'state aid requiring notification' without applying the undertaking/economic-activity test and without checking GBER or de minimis.
A reflex equation of 'public money to an organisation' with 'state aid'.
What to do instead
Run the four-step test explicitly: is the recipient an undertaking? Are all aid elements present? Is there an exemption (GBER category, de minimis ceiling)? Is notification required? State the conclusion step by step.
Describing the ordinary legislative procedure as 'the Council adopts after Parliament gives its opinion', or presenting a trilogue agreement as the formal adoption step.
Compressed process summaries drop the readings and conciliation stages, and trilogues get more media attention than the formal votes.
What to do instead
Draw the procedure from Article 294 TFEU (Commission proposal, EP first reading, Council position, EP second reading by absolute majority, conciliation, third reading) and label trilogues as informal negotiation only.
Claiming an impact assessment is mandatory for every Commission legislative proposal, or using 'evaluation', 'fitness check' and 'impact assessment' interchangeably.
Broad-brush revision phrases blur the distinct Better Regulation instruments.
What to do instead
Learn the Better Regulation Toolbox distinctions and the 'evaluate first' principle; state when an impact assessment is needed (significant economic, social or environmental impacts) and who scrutinises it (Regulatory Scrutiny Board).
Saying the Council presidency 'sets the EU legislative agenda' or 'decides' the outcome of a file, and omitting the Commission's right of initiative.
The presidency is highly visible in news coverage, which overstates its formal powers.
What to do instead
Describe the presidency as chair of Council formations, broker of compromises and manager of the trio programme; attribute legislative initiative to the Commission and final adoption to Council and Parliament together.
Describing CAF as an audit or an award scheme, or listing its criteria without the PDCA improvement cycle.
The acronym is treated as a quality prize rather than a total quality management model.
What to do instead
Reproduce the model: nine criteria in two groups, evidence-based self-assessment, improvement plan, Plan-Do-Check-Act; state explicitly that CAF is a self-assessment TQM tool, not a compliance audit.
Answering that all CFSP decisions require unanimity, or assigning the High Representative the Commission's external-trade competence.
CFSP is generalised into one voting rule, and the HR/VP role is conflated with that of a Commissioner.
What to do instead
Build a table of CFSP voting: European Council and Council generally act unanimously, but QMV applies to appointing special representatives and to implementing decisions; trade is exclusive EU competence under Article 207 TFEU.
Saying the GDPR applies directly to EU institutions, or treating NIS2 and the GDPR as the same instrument when answering a cyber-security question.
The GDPR is the best-known privacy law, so it is applied by default to every data-processing scenario.
What to do instead
Use a scope matrix: GDPR (Member State public and private bodies), Regulation 2018/1725 (EU institutions and bodies), NIS2 (cyber risk management for essential and important entities), LED (law enforcement). Name the instrument before applying any rule.
Treating all AI systems as requiring conformity assessment, or assigning obligations by technology type rather than by risk tier.
Headlines about 'AI regulation' suggest one uniform regime.
What to do instead
Use the risk-tier table (prohibited, high-risk, limited-risk transparency, minimal-risk) plus the separate general-purpose AI obligations and their application dates; identify the actor (provider or deployer) before listing duties.