Rubric & Guidelines for Scenario and Group Presentation: EUAL (HU)

Rubric is based on: HINTON MOOT COURT BALLOT and compare Rubric MCS (HU)
EXAMINER: Mieke Vos-van der Linden: ind. part; write a self-reflection ☐
PARTICIPANTS (three students per group): ASSESSMENT: fail/pass (see below for ind. ‘score’)
- Scenario [ ] Student1: ☐

- Scenario [ ] Student2: ☐

- Scenario [ ] Student3: ☐

Do not grade on the merits. Although you
may view a ‘case/essay/GP’ as having a
stronger case as a matter of law, take care
not to let your judgment as to the merits
colour your assessment of the participants.
BALLOT GUIDELINES
Start with ‘average’ and adjust up or down.
To help anchor examiner’s scoring across
participants, begin with the assumption
that each participant should receive a score
of ‘average’ and then adjust up and down.
When in doubt on Substance, check the
back of this sheet for qualitative guideli-
nes to aid in distinguishing the different
scores in Substance category (score: 1 - 9).

Presentation skills (are not part of this exam) STYLE AND SUBSTANCE Scenario (= group grade)
1. STYLE 2. SUBSTANCE (‘SCENARIO’)
Poise, delivery, eye contact, tone, pace, body General knowledge of EU/ECHR law, strength and cohe-
language, deference, cadence, confidence, SCORE siveness of arguments, familiarity with key cases, use of SCORE
composure, demeanour, control, ability to be (1) supporting precedent and distinction of negative prece- (1-9)
heard, use of time, structure & clarity of pre- dent, correct application of STEPS/facts/arguments most
sentation, etc.(qualitative guidelines on back) relevant to the case, etc.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
VERY NEARLY
DISASTROUS VERY POOR POOR FAIL AVERAGE GOOD EXCELLENT PERFECT
GOOD

Problems are Passable, but No issues

complete Major unremarkable. Minor worth
Several One or two Several
impediment problems Moderate problems One or two minor mentioning.
major major minor
to com- across the improvements across the problems. Nearly
problems. problems. problems.
munication. board. needed. board. flawless.

STRUCTURE & ORGANISATION AND HANDLING EXAMINER’S QUESTION(S)

3. STRUCTURE & ORGANISATION (‘Scenario’)
Clear document (intro, concl, headings, para.,
etc.) & argumentative (red/central thread)
structure. Clear overarching design to
arguments & smooth transitions between topics,
correct source reference, within word limit & rel.
(case) ‘guidelines’.
4. SELF-REFLECTION: LEGAL ANALYSIS (ind. score)
• Write a legal analysis. GP +
SCORE • Provide your contribution as a percentage (f.i. self-
(1-5) group of two students should be: 50%/50% or group reflection
of three students should be 33%/33%/33%).
• Why do think your contribution was interesting for
you? On which case did you write a legal analysis
and how did this case relate to the other case(s)
analysed and to the scenario? Elaborate why.

1 2 3 4 5
POOR FAIL AVERAGE GOOD EXCELLENT

Several major One or two major Passable, but unremarkable. Several minor areas for impro- One or two minor areas for impro-
problems. problems. Moderate improvements needed. vement, but no major problems. vement, but no major problems.

Assessment & feedback: on ‘Scenario’ (check: GradeWork)! Handing in a self-reflection (check: below)
- Student1 (red pencil)/EUAL (co-referent1):

- Student2 (blue pencil)/EUAL (co-referent2): Question: equal

teamwork/ ☐
- Student3 (green pencil)/EUAL (co-referent3): team effort?
RUBRIC EUAL (MEUL&HR @ HU) version 1.0 9 December 2023 p.1
 QUALITATIVE GUIDELINES
Includes poise, delivery, eye contact, tone, pace, body language, deference, cadence, confidence, composure, demeanour,
STYLE control, ability to be heard, use of time, structure & clarity of present., etc.

NEARLY
9 PERFECT
Smooth flow, no unnecessary pauses, excellent rapport with audience/examiner, very persuasive, engaging body language.

8 EXCELLENT Good flow, uses body language appropriately, good rapport with audience/examiner, persuasive presentation.

Minor interruptions in flow, clear speaking, some use of body language, somewhat persuasive, may appear to lose confidence
7 VERY GOOD
once or twice.

Occasional breaks in flow, may have some minor distracting habits, inconsistent cadence or tone, possible lack of confidence
6 GOOD
at times.

Stylistic problems have a very limited impact on ability to convey meaning, no positive use of body language, no noteworthy
5 AVERAGE
distracting habits.

Loss of poise, occasional confusion, some distracting habits, rarely uses body language effectively. Style problems have some
4 FAIL
impact on ability to convey meaning.

Never establishes good rapport with audience/examiner due to a number of distracting habits, poor cadence and tone, and
3 POOR
generally unpersuasive and unengaging delivery. Substance is sometimes obscured by stylistic problems.

There are long and uncomfortable pauses, and body language is overwhelmingly more distracting than engaging. Stylistic
2 VERY POOR
problems frequently interfere with the speaker’s ability to convey substance.

1 DISASTROUS Substance is totally overshadowed by stylistic problems.

SCENARIO: General knowledge of EU/ECHR law, strength and cohesiveness of arguments, familiarity with key
SUBSTANCE cases, use of supporting precedent and distinction of negative precedent, correct application of
STEPS/facts/arguments most relevant to the case, etc.

NEARLY Strongest possible arguments are made, negative precedent is distinguished convincingly, anticipated by argumentative
9 PERFECT framework, full knowledge of the case and relevant precedent, also very creative (correct) application to the situation at
issue (i.o.w. the ‘legal significance of the judgement for your client’).

Makes strong arguments, knows key cases very well and other cases as needed, adapts argumentative framework to
8 EXCELLENT
incorporate judges’ concerns, great knowledge of the case and relevant precedent, also creative (correct) application to
the situation at issue (i.o.w. the ‘legal significance of the judgement for your client’).

7 VERY GOOD Some arguments need to be developed or fleshed out, but generally strong on all substantive issues.

Impressive knowledge of the case and relevant precedent, but uncreative (correct) application to the situation at issue
6 GOOD
(i.o.w. the ‘legal significance of the judgement for your client’). May have left one or two loose ends, but generally knew
what they were talking about.

Demonstrated knowledge of the case and key precedents, but no overarching argumentative approach or creativity. Also
5 AVERAGE
sufficient (correct) application to the situation at issue (i.o.w. the ‘legal significance of the judgement for your client’).
With moderate preparation, most law students could reach this level of mastery.

Some knowledge of the case and a few key precedents, but no overarching argumentative approach. Also insufficient
4 FAIL
(incorrect) application to the situation at issue (i.o.w. the ‘legal significance of the judgement for your client’). May box self
into corner or have several loose ends. May not have thought every issue all the way through.

RUBRIC EUAL (MEUL&HR @ HU) version 1.0 9 December 2023 p.2

 A shaky understanding of the key issues of the case and the facts, but very limited knowledge of the relevant precedent.
3 POOR
Arguments are void of creativity, and irrelevant (incorrect) application to the situation at issue (i.o.w. the ‘legal
significance of the judgement for your client’), and Examiner’s questions are not responded to completely.

Arguments do not tie together, almost no knowledge of any precedent. May struggle with the facts of the case at issue.
2 VERY POOR
No (incorrect) application to the situation at issue (i.o.w. the ‘legal significance of the judgement for your client’).
Difficult to imagine much time went into preparing.

1 DISASTROUS So unprepared and illogical that little of any real substance is conveyed.

Guidelines for the Scenario and Group Presentation (‘GP’) for EUAL

Scenario and presentation of a case regarding European Union Asylum Law: 70% of final grade

Both elements (group and individual grade) must be a: ‘pass’; students need a min. grade of 5,5, to
pass the Scenario and Group Presentation (EXAM2):

- Both elements (group and individual grade) must be a: ‘pass’; students need a min. grade of 5,5, to
pass the Scenario and the Legal Analysis.

- All instructions from the case and from the ‘Rubric & Guidelines for Scenario/Group Presentation
(‘GP’) must be followed.

- The Examiner may at any time inform about student’s individual contributions and/or decide on an
(extra) individual short oral exam (spot check) if in doubt.

- You are not allowed to use AI (like f.i. GPchat, etc.) for this Scenario and GP.

- You are a lawyer specialized in EU Asylum Law. A new client contacts you, tells you his/her story and asks
you for help.

- The context of the scenario is assigned to you/your group.

- The goal of this scenario assignment is for you to show that:

1. You can distillate the legal problem of the situation of your client and formulate the main legal question;
2. You can come up with arguments making the case for your client by using existing case law,
(EU/ECHR) legislation and relevant literature;
3. You can work in a team (equal teamwork/team effort): learning how to write and present (GP) an essay
on relevant case law in a small group of max. 3 students.

- correctly use 'OSCOLA’ and the ‘CRAAP’ test for correct source reference for relevant legal sources
(online and offline).

- work together in a team (equal teamwork/team effort) and learn from each other (f.i. during peer
review/feedback): learning how to write and present a ‘scenario’ and/or PPP in a small group of max. 3
students.
- RUBRIC: final grade

Scenario (group grade)

- Substance (2): score 1-9 pt plus

RUBRIC EUAL (MEUL&HR @ HU) version 1.0 9 December 2023 p.3

- Structure (3): score 1-5 pt
- Total: 14 pt max.

1) – 1,0

2) – 1,4

3) – 2,1

4) – 2,9

5) – 3,6

6) – 4,3

7) – 5,0

8) – 5,7

9) – 6,4

10) – 7,1

11) – 7,9

12) – 8,6

13) – 9,3

14) – 10

- Style: Only if the presentation is (nearly) perfect, you can earn 1 point extra (e.g. from 9 to 10 points,
means from a 6,4 to a 7,1). The style includes poise, delivery, eye contact, tone, pace, body language,
deference, cadence, confidence, composure, demeanor, control, ability to be heard, use of time, structure
and clarity. Only when (the style of) the presentation has a smooth flow, no unnecessary pauses, and is
very persuasive and engaging body language is used, it will be graded (nearly) perfectly.

Check below for extra guidance on the three compulsory parts of this essay assignment and how to hand it in:

I) The Scenario (group/team effort)

II) The Individual Part (self-reflection)
III) The presentation of the scenario (group/team effort)
IV) Deadline and GradeWork

I) The scenario consists of three parts:

1. Write a summary of the case of your client and include the following items:
a. Identify the parties involved.
b. Present the facts of the application of the asylum seeker briefly and to-the-point (but be
thorough).
c. State the facts of the rejection of the decision of the public authority.
d. Describe the central legal question to be answered.

2. Collect your arguments

RUBRIC EUAL (MEUL&HR @ HU) version 1.0 9 December 2023 p.4

 a. List the rules of EU law or ECHR law that are concerned and the topics they regulate. Give a
short explanation of the content of rules concerned: Treaty/Convention, directive, regulation,
etc.
b. List the relevant case law and the arguments which back your clients case.
c. Use arguments from relevant literature.

3. Write a legal advice (which arguments to be used and which arguments have to be
undermined/tackled?):

State the grounds for appeal on part of the asylum seeker using the analysed case law and write your legal
advice.

Please give your own critical analysis of the legislation, judgements and literature when you advise your client.
Take care of building up your arguments carefully in making your client’s case.

Note that you will be rewarded for using extra sources such as legal comments in law journal articles, other
case law, relevant legal sources (online), etc.

IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS

The following formal requirements are mandatory:

- Make a front page including your names;

- Line spacing 1,5;
- Use page numbering;
- Use headings in your text in Italics;
- Use footnotes if you refer to other sources or to the judgement assigned to you (mention the rel. para.
of your case; as taught for MCS in week A1);
- Your (essay) assignment will be judged on plagiarism, this also entails not using footnotes and citations
when using other sources;
- The essay should consist of min. 2000 – max. 2700 words (you have a margin of minus/plus of 10%;
footnotes are not included).

II) The Individual Part:

Along with this scenario handed in via GradeWork, every student must write and submit a
(self)reflection on the individual contribution to the scenario/GP.

Explain the contribution (choose one part of your contribution) you made (in detail) in your
group while writing the essay:

1. Write a legal analysis.

2. Provide your contribution as a percentage (f.i. group of two students should be: 50%/50% or group
of three students should be 33%/33%/33%).
3. Why do think your contribution was interesting (for the group work)? On which case did you write a
legal analysis and how did this case relate to the other case(s) analysed and to the scenario?
Elaborate why.
RUBRIC EUAL (MEUL&HR @ HU) version 1.0 9 December 2023 p.5
 4. Length is maximum 1 page.
5. Hand in your (self-)reflection as an attachment to your legal analysis (via GradeWork).

If the reflection and other circumstances seem to raise doubts to the contribution of the student
to the essay/GP, the grade shall not be awarded to the student (NVD in Osiris) or the grade of
the student shall be different than the grade of the other students in the group. Doubts are in
any case raised when:

1. The contribution of an individual student in the group is not well balanced with regards to the
contributions of the other student in the group.
2. The contribution of an individual student in the group is considerably less in quality than the
contribution of the other student in the group.

- If the reflection is graded with NVD (i.e. the student did not contribute evenly to the group work), the
individual student has to write an additional assignment on the question what his or her contribution
should had been by using several examples.

III) Group presentation:

You are to give a presentation in a group of max. 3 students in front of your class.
▪ The subject of your presentation is the ECJ/ECtHR case assigned for your GP (check
CANVAS).
▪ The presentation lasts approximately 12 minutes. The speaking time is divided equally
between the students in the group.
▪ During your presentation you use PPT/Prezi or something similar, to provide your fellow
students with a proper structure.
▪ If, after your group handed in the scenario, you come to the conclusion that you made a
mistake in your scenario, you may try to correct this during your presentation (GP) in
class. You should then, during your presentation, clearly state: “we seem to have made
a mistake in our essay, which we like to correct here and now.” Then please explain
what you did wrong, so the teacher/examiner can take this into consideration for your
assessment.
▪ You will be assessed and evaluated by the teacher/examiner based on this Rubric and
she/he will decide on: pass or fail. You may also receive peer feedback by fellow
students on your presentation skills.
▪ The presentations are to take place on Tuesday 30 January 2024 (during the final
tutorial).
▪ Should you not pass for your presentation, you will be given a second chance to present
on the same topic in the week of the term resit. A pass for the presentation is a condition
for passing the course.

RUBRIC EUAL (MEUL&HR @ HU) version 1.0 9 December 2023 p.6

 IV) DEADLINE: the scenario – together with the legal analysis/self-reflection – must be handed
in by (one of) the team members via Gradework (as a group assignment; please select all
group members. Check the instructions on CANVAS) at the latest 26 January 2024. If you run
into any difficulties, make sure you e-mail your scenario in time to: mieke.vos-
vanderlinden@hu.nl

Good luck and have fun!

Mieke Vos-van der Linden

RUBRIC EUAL (MEUL&HR @ HU) version 1.0 9 December 2023 p.7