FE-1 Law of the European Union study plan

Map the hierarchy of EU law sources - primary Treaties, general principles, international agreements, secondary legislation, delegated and implementing acts - and give one exam-style example of each.

State the criteria for direct effect and supremacy, distinguishing Van Gend en Loos, Costa v ENEL and Simmenthal, and identify which national body must disapply conflicting national law.

Separate vertical from horizontal direct effect and list which instruments (Treaty articles, regulations, decisions, directives) can produce each.

Build a decision tree that routes any given provision to direct effect, consistent interpretation (Marleasing) or State liability.

Answer 20 short supremacy/direct-effect scenarios and log every error with the corrected rule.

Apply the Dassonville formula for measures having equivalent effect to five invented national rules and state the outcome for each.

Distinguish distinctly from indistinctly applicable measures and apply the Cassis de Dijon mutual recognition presumption plus the mandatory requirements list.

Apply the Keck selling-arrangements exception and explain, using de Agostini and Gourmet International, when it will not rescue a national rule.

Separate Article 36 TFEU derogations from mandatory requirements and run a full proportionality test on each justification raised.

Distinguish charges having equivalent effect under Article 30 from discriminatory internal taxation under Article 110.

Map the personal scope of Article 45 TFEU and the derived rights of family members under Regulation 492/2011 and Directive 2004/38.

Distinguish establishment under Article 49 from services under Article 56 and apply the Gebhard restrictions test to two hypothetical rules.

Apply the citizenship case law under Articles 20–21 TFEU, contrasting Grzelczyk and Baumbast with the limits set in Dano and Alimanovic.

Set out the residence architecture of Directive 2004/38 - three months, beyond three months, permanent residence - and the grounds for expulsion.

Solve three problems that require choosing the correct freedom, identifying the restriction and deciding whether justification succeeds.

Break down Article 101(1) TFEU into agreement, decision, concerted practice, object or effect, and the de minimis threshold, and apply it to two fact patterns.

Explain the Article 101(3) conditions, block exemptions and the decentralised enforcement model created by Regulation 1/2003.

Apply Article 102 TFEU: define the relevant market, establish dominance, classify the abuse and test any objective justification.

Classify measures against all four Article 107(1) TFEU criteria and match compatible aid to Article 107(2), 107(3) or the General Block Exemption Regulation.

Distinguish the enforcement roles of the Commission, national competition authorities and national courts in antitrust and State aid.

Trace the Article 258–260 TFEU infringement procedure from letter of formal notice to financial penalties and distinguish it from the Article 259 route.

Draft a valid Article 267 TFEU reference question and apply the acte clair and acte éclairé exceptions plus the CILFIT duty on courts of last instance.

Explain the binding effect of a preliminary ruling and the limits of the Court's interpretative jurisdiction.

Allocate each major policy area to the correct EU competence category and test a proposal against conferral, subsidiarity and proportionality.

Walk the ordinary legislative procedure from Commission proposal to adoption and identify the legal basis and voting rule at each stage.

Apply Francovich and Brasserie du Pêcheur: establish the breached rule's purpose, the seriousness of the breach, damage and causal link.

Set out effective judicial protection through Article 19 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter, and apply the Rewe equivalence and effectiveness limits on procedural autonomy.

Determine the scope of the Charter under Article 51 and identify when fundamental rights operate as a justification for restricting free movement.

Apply Article 18 TFEU and the non-discrimination directives to distinguish direct from indirect discrimination and test objective justification.

Solve two problems, one on State liability and one on Charter scope, checking each step against the governing test.

Re-solve two goods and two persons problems under 25-minute timed conditions without notes and mark them against the earlier rubrics.

Rewrite every recurring error from weeks 2–3 as a one-line correct rule in a personal error log.

Compare how justification and proportionality operate differently under Article 36 TFEU and under Articles 45, 49 and 56 TFEU.

Draft skeleton outlines for three cross-cutting questions that combine citizenship with goods or services.

Sit a full three-hour mock covering all nine domains under exam conditions, with no notes and strict timing.

Mark the mock against a self-built grid and identify the three lowest-scoring sub-topics for targeted re-reading.

Condense the eight weekly deliverables into a single two-page revision sheet organised by domain weight.

Run a 15-minute recall drill naming and stating the test in Dassonville, Cassis, Keck, Gebhard, Francovich and CILFIT from memory.