PÅL THYGESEN
EIRIN NYHUS-JENSSEN
FRØYDIS PATURSSON
HANNAH BENNIN BRATAAS
HENRIK VAALER
TORIL STRAND HUSEVÅG
DOMEN KAVKA
Ema P. Končan
Katja Doležalek
Maja Ramšak
MARJAN KOS
MATEJ BRAJNIK
Team Schjødt
Country represented: Norway
University and specific area of study:
Faculty of law, University of Oslo
Club Henrik Steska
Country represented: Slovenia
University and specific area of study:
Faculty of Law, University of Ljubljana
What was your personal experience of the
Moot Court finals in Strasbourg?
What was your personal experience of the
Moot Court finals in Strasbourg?
Were you nervous and how did you deal
with it?
Toril Strand Husevåg: It
Maja Ramšak:
It was a unique experience. By winning the Regional Moot Court finals in the Western Balkans we got the opportunity to participate
in the Trans-European finals in Strasbourg at the
headquarters of the European Court. We appreciated being a part of this exceptional event and
believe it provided all of us with great professional
experience.
Domen Kavka: The night before the competition
the whole team became nervous as we were still
trying to figure out the best way to approach our
oral pleadings. However we overcame it with inspiring music, some treats and lots of jokes. The
whole team finally relaxed when we sat down in the
small hearing room of the Court building.
was a lot of hard work and
out of my comfort zone, but I loved it! It was an
amazing experience and such a privilege to get the
opportunity to attend. We had a lot of fun preparing and I really enjoyed meeting the other participants and contributors.
What was the atmosphere like at the
competition?
Toril Strand Husevåg: It was fun and serious at the
same time. And I think we were all impressed by
the fact that we got to be at the European Court of
Human Rights. It was unforgettable.
Were you nervous?
I was very nervous at the
time, but I think I was even more thankful and excited when the event began so the nerves eventually subsided.
Toril Strand Husevåg:
What were the main challenges for you
and how did you overcome them?
Toril Strand Husevåg: I think the main challenge
was that I hadn’t done anything on this scale before
and we didn’t really know what to expect. I overcame it by good team work and a little courage.
What was the atmosphere like at the
competition?
Katja Doležalek: The
oral pleadings took place in
a small hearing room in front of numerous prestigious judges. One would think that this could
create an intimidating atmosphere, but that was
not the case. It was quite the opposite – the atmosphere was really nice and relaxed.
What was the topic of the Court case?
Matej Brajnik: The
case revolved around a very interesting topic regarding one state’s refusal to allow a Pride Festival. It was a really big challenge to
find relevant case-law related to this topic, which
is very controversial in many European countries
especially in Eastern Europe.
Can you sum up the benefits and
how it might influence your future in
human rights?
Toril Strand Husevåg: I learned a lot about working under pressure, team-work, oral proceedings
and most importantly it gave me a greater passion
to work with human rights and to fight for the protection of hidden minorities specifically.
What were the main challenges for you
and how did you overcome them?
The language in use was English.
That was probably the main challenge for us. One
of the hardest parts was answering questions from
the judges. We tried to overcome the challenges
by rehearsing the speeches and anticipating possible answers.
Ema P. Končan:
Can you sum up the benefits to you
and how it might influence your future
in human rights?
Marjan Kos: Besides
the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to present a case before a panel of honourable European Judges, we gained invaluable experience during several rounds of oral pleadings.
The main benefit for all of us is undoubtedly a
much more profound and detailed understanding
of the European Convention on Human Rights
and the European Court of Human Rights.
“ he main benefit for all of us is undoubtedly a much
T
more profound and detailed understanding of the
European Convention on Human Rights and the
European Court of Human Rights.”
31