KS DH Juris common mistakes
KS DH Juris · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Citing a statute article number from memory without verifying that the provision is still in force and contains the rule the answer needs, so the answer rests on a repealed or renumbered article.
Candidates memorise article numbers during revision and then reproduce them under time pressure, without checking consolidations. Luxembourg law is amended frequently (civil code, commercial law, procedural codes), and a number that was correct two years ago may now point to a different rule or to a repealed text.
What to do instead
Build the habit of citing the rule by its content first ('the rule that the debtor's liability for latent defects is excluded in a sale between professionals unless the seller knew of the defect') and only then attaching the article number, which you verify against a consolidated version. In open-book formats, always open the consolidated text; in closed-book formats, prefer citing the code and the principle over an uncertain number.
Treating the hierarchy of norms as a slogan and failing to apply it: accepting a domestic statute as the decisive answer when a directly applicable EU regulation or a superior constitutional norm governs the same question.
Revision tends to separate EU law, constitutional law and ordinary statute law into different chapters, so candidates do not practise spotting conflicts between them in a single fact pattern. They answer within the branch of law the question seems to belong to and stop there.
What to do instead
Before writing, ask three questions in order: is there a directly applicable EU instrument (regulation, or a directive with direct effect against the State)? Does a constitutional norm (equality, legality, property guarantee) constrain the statute? Only then apply the statute. Practise with short scenarios where a national rule conflicts with an EU regulation, and state expressly which norm prevails and why.
Answering a constitutional or administrative law question by describing the institution (what the Conseil d'État is, what a commune does) instead of performing the review the question asks for: competence, form, motive, proportionality and equality.
Institutional knowledge is easier to revise and easier to reproduce, so it crowds out the analytical grid. Candidates recognise the topic, write what they know, and never reach the part of the answer that earns the marks.
What to do instead
Use a fixed review grid for every administrative act: legality of the author's competence, procedural regularity, accuracy of the facts, error of law, misuse of power, and proportionality where fundamental rights are engaged. Apply each heading to the facts in one or two sentences, and conclude on annulment or rejection. Write the grid on your draft sheet before starting.
Confusing the sources of obligations and applying the wrong regime: analysing a contractual claim as delictual (or vice versa), or ignoring the non-cumulation rule when a contract exists between the parties.
Fact patterns deliberately mix a defective performance with damage to a third party or to property, and candidates seize on the word 'damage' without asking whether a contract links the parties. The rules on concurrence of actions are examined precisely because they are easy to blur.
What to do instead
First classify: is there a valid contract between claimant and defendant? If yes, the contractual regime governs and extra-contractual liability is in principle excluded between the parties; if no, apply the delictual conditions (fault, damage, causation). Then check special regimes (sale, lease, mandate) before the general regime. State the classification explicitly in the first line of the answer.
Reciting the elements of an offence without applying them to the facts, and forgetting the preliminary questions of applicability of the criminal law in time and space and the conditions of prosecution.
Candidates learn definitions as lists and treat the fact pattern as an illustration rather than as the object of analysis. They also overlook that a question may turn on whether the offence was committed before or after a change in the law, or on the statute of limitations.
What to do instead
Structure every criminal answer as: applicable law (time, space, persons), legal element (definition, one sentence), material element (each fact mapped to the definition), moral element (intent or negligence as required), grounds of justification or excuse, then prosecution and limitation. If any element is missing on the facts, say so and conclude on acquittal.
Mixing procedural acts and their effects: not distinguishing the summons, the conclusions, the judgment and the remedies, and giving a time limit for the wrong act or the wrong court.
Procedure is learned as a sequence of steps but examined through a single defective act, so candidates describe the whole proceeding instead of diagnosing the defect and its sanction (nullity, inadmissibility, preclusion). Time limits are memorised in isolation and attached to the wrong act under pressure.
What to do instead
For each procedural question, identify the act, its author, its form, its time limit and the sanction for non-compliance, and check whether the sanction is expressly provided or requires proof of harm. Keep a one-page table of the main limits (appeal, opposition, cassation) with the starting point of each period, and rehearse diagnosing a single defect rather than summarising the trial.
Answering a corporate law question with the general rules of company law while ignoring the specific form of company and its mandatory rules, or treating insolvency as a mere continuation of enforcement.
Candidates revise the common core (legal personality, limited liability) and then apply it to every form, missing that capital, governance, transfer of shares and creditor protection differ sharply between forms. Insolvency is often reduced to 'the debtor cannot pay', without the conditions for opening, the effects on pending contracts and the position of directors.
What to do instead
Always begin by naming the company form and the rule that applies to it, flagging mandatory provisions. For insolvency, work through: cessation of payments, opening judgment, effects on contracts, stay of individual enforcement, ranking of creditors, and liability of directors for trading while insolvent. Compare two forms side by side in revision to fix the differences.
Treating labour law as a branch of general contract law: applying freedom of contract to clauses that are mandatory, or ignoring the hierarchy between statute, collective agreement and individual contract.
The employment contract looks like an ordinary contract, so candidates apply offer, acceptance and freedom of terms, forgetting that most rules are protective and mandatory. They also forget that a collective agreement can improve but not derogate from statutory minima.
What to do instead
For every labour question, state the hierarchy (statute, collective agreement, individual contract, usage) and test whether the clause is more or less favourable to the employee than the mandatory minimum. Address termination separately: ground, form, notice, and the consequences of unfair dismissal. Check the social security dimension whenever the facts mention incapacity or unemployment.
Computing tax on the wrong base or for the wrong taxpayer: applying a rate to a gross figure when the base is net, or attributing income to the company when it is taxable in the hands of the shareholder.
Tax questions reward precision and candidates answer from general impressions of rates and bases. The interaction between corporate tax, withholding and personal taxation of distributions is the classic trap, and the arithmetic is done hastily at the end of the exam.
What to do instead
For each tax question, write the taxable person, the taxable event, the base and the rate as four separate lines before computing. For distributions and cross-border flows, trace the income through each level and state which withholding applies and whether a treaty or EU directive relieves it. Show the calculation steps so partial credit survives an arithmetic slip.
Invoking European or international law as a label without the operative step: naming a directive or a convention without saying whether it has direct effect, whether it has been transposed, and what the national court must actually do.
Candidates learn instruments by name and topic but not their legal effect. They write 'the directive protects the consumer' instead of identifying the provision, its direct effect or the duty of consistent interpretation, and the remedy available.
What to do instead
For every EU or international instrument cited, add three sentences: the provision relied on, its legal effect in the national legal order (direct effect, consistent interpretation, State liability, or indirect effect through the convention's incorporation), and the concrete consequence for the case. If the instrument has no direct effect between private parties, say so and route the argument through national law interpreted consistently.
Ignoring conflicts of interest and the limits of the mandate: accepting or continuing a matter without checking whether the client's interest conflicts with another client's or with the lawyer's own, and answering ethics questions with generalities about integrity.
Ethics is revised as a list of virtues rather than as rules with concrete triggers. Candidates do not practise identifying the moment a conflict arises (a new client in a related matter, a personal stake in the transaction, a former client's file) and therefore do not see it in the facts.
What to do instead
For every ethics scenario, run the checks in order: competence and mandate, conflict of interest (current, former, personal), confidentiality and its limits, fees and the fee agreement, and communication with the client and the court. Name the rule, the trigger in the facts, and the required action (decline the mandate, obtain informed consent, withdraw, inform the bar). Conclude with the disciplinary consequence of the wrong choice.