Cătălin Panțiru holds an LL.B. from “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University of Iași, Romania, and an LL.M. in International Business Law from the Católica Global School of Law, Portugal. He participated in the 13th edition of the Helga Pedersen Moot Court Competition, where he received the Best Speaker Award at the Regional Round in Vilnius, Lithuania, and qualified for the Final Oral Round of the HPMCC in Strasbourg, France. He is also the Director for Competitions for ELSA International.

On the 25th of October, I sent in my video to try to be part of the team representing my university at last year’s edition of the Moot Court. On the 1st of November, I woke up, and I saw that the results had been announced. And there it was, right there on the list—my name… missing. I hadn’t made the team. My journey seemed to have ended much sooner than I ever expected.

And you’re probably thinking: Wait… you didn’t make it, but then somehow you did? How does that work? Well, my friends, like so many things in life, it all came down to a little bit of luck.

After I found out I wasn’t on the team, I went straight into frustration and anger. But I didn’t even have time to properly be mad about it. Three days later, one of my classmates—who had made the cut—came to me, placed her phone on my desk, and showed me an email from our professor. Only two out of the three selected students had confirmed their spot on time, and the third place was going to the next person in line. That person was me.

What I am trying to say with this little story is, most of the time, success stories are not what they seem to be. Today you can be the best and tomorrow the worst. And none of them should change how you feel about this journey. Do it for the learning curve, do it for the fun, do it because there will be so few things that will make you feel this kind of adrenaline.

Now, enough with the chit chat, let’s focus on everything you need to know about this competition!!

Brief 101 into ECHR Law

While ECHR law is not, in itself, one of those branches of law that is technically complicated, what is tricky about it, in my opinion, is the nuance required in argumentation before the Court. Proving that something is black or white—especially in the context of a Human Rights Moot Court question, which is always based on something very new, with little to no case-law—now that’s where things get really complicated. Therefore, some steps are required in order to untangle this complicated case.

First: Try to understand the particularities of the rights addressed in the case. While all rights under the Convention are fundamental, they are not all assessed under the same test. So, the very first thing you should do is familiarize yourself with the details of the rights covered by the moot question. A great starting point is the guides provided by the ECtHR, along with the courses available on the HELP platform.

Second: The procedural aspects of the case. While it’s always more fun to argue the substance of the case, the ECtHR is absolutely strict—almost sacred—when it comes to procedure. In a moot court, this usually comes down to the admissibility requirements, which you cannot afford to overlook.

Last but not least: The language and reasoning style of the Court. If legalese wasn’t “Klingon” enough already, the ECtHR adds its own quirks that you need to be aware of. Once you’ve familiarised yourself with the Court’s terminology, the next step is to study how its judges actually reach their conclusions. Of course, each judge has their own style, but there are certain patterns which are, more or less, universal. For a good starting point, I’d recommend Jeremy McBride’s The Doctrines and Methodology of Interpretation ECHR by the ECtHR. And for something a bit more in-depth, Janneke Gerards’ General Principles of the ECHR is excellent.

I need to start with a disclaimer about this step. You will be learning ECHR law throughout the entire process. Therefore, while it’s definitely helpful to build a foundation before you start working on the written submissions, let me be clear: you don’t need to be an expert in this field of law the moment you embark on this journey. You can—and you will—deepen your knowledge as you go. Just remember to be consistent with your preparation.

Written Submissions

The first and most important rule here is this: know your facts like there’s no tomorrow. To build the strongest arguments, you need to understand the situation inside out. Even more importantly, you need to spot what’s missing—what elements you’ll need to prove your claim. That’s where clarification questions become your best friend. In fact, they’ll often turn out to be even more useful than the fact pattern itself.

So, your first step is simple: read the fact pattern. Then read it again. Then read it a few more times. Do this over a couple of days, and each time, start thinking about what’s missing and prepare your clarification questions. (And by the way, keep rereading that fact pattern regularly throughout the competition—it will always reveal something new.)

After a few days of this, you can move to the next step: issue identification. This is where you extract the main questions the case raises. Once you’ve identified the issues you think are relevant, you move to rule application—that is, you sort those issues under the articles you think apply, whether substantive or procedural.

Now comes the biggest challenge: developing your analysis. This is where you dive into relevant case law, doctrine, studies, and anything else you can find to support your arguments. Besides the sources I already mentioned earlier, I highly recommend the ECtHR’s factsheets available on HUDOC. They’re a fantastic starting point and can save you a lot of time.

Regarding the division of work, I think that here the decision is fully dependent on the team. However, I would argue that everyone should work on all sections of the WS one way or another, either via a peer review system or by switching sides as you evolve with the drafts. That’s because, while you will specialise at some point of the competition, it is ideal that you do not do that, at least not fully, during this stage of the competition.

Regional Rounds

For me, the regional round is the coolest stage of the competition. It is a combination of the excitement of travel and the emotions of the pleadings. One of the cool features of the HPMCC is the fact that, no matter what you do, as long as you send the written submissions, you have the chance to plead, which is an absolutely fantastic opportunity; it is the moment for which you have been preparing.

For this section, I will divide the pieces of advice under two stages:

What should you do before the RR

The first thing that needs to be done is, obviously, your speech. While there is no magic formula for the right speech, I would argue that there are some key elements that you should bear in mind:

Prioritise your arguments: Imagine that you only have 2 minutes to make your case. Which argument would you like to present to the judges in those two minutes?
Know your story: Before we talk about law, we talk about humans. They have stories, struggles, emotions (or, in the case of respondent states, they have responsibilities, competing interests, priorities). Make that story feel real.
Less is more: Know your cases, know your rules, know your doctrine. However, do not let those outshine your client. One case presented with the proper analysis, with the differentiation done right, and with the facts illustrated accordingly will weigh 1,000 times more than name-dropping 100 cases, studies, and doctrinal analyses.

The second thing: practice rounds. Practice as many times as possible. Get your classmates, other professors, and any one else who will, to listen to your speech and ask you questions. Practice with cold benches, hot benches, prepare for all the scenarios. Ideally, at the regional round, you should be prepared for 95% of the scenarios that will come.

What should you do during the regional round?

First things first, be sociable. We are all here to win, I get it. Trust me, no one will talk about their arguments and give you their case on a silver platter so you can beat them like there is no tomorrow. Therefore, you can all accept that being friendly and curious about the people with whom you will socialise for the next couple of days won’t do any harm to your performance.

Secondly, prepare your pleading. And I am not talking about the substance, but the posture. At this point, it is all about getting into the flow of your speech. Imagine yourself being in that room, with those judges. I know you may be scared. Don’t hide it. Be true to yourself and plead with passion. Drink that sip of water in the middle of your practice if you feel your mouth is dry, take that moment to breathe if you feel like it, take that second to search through your cases. But do all of these with patience and calm, not as if you are guilty as charged for the biggest crime. If the judges feel like you want to run from them, they won’t even try to reach out to you. Judges are like the fox from The Little Prince. They will engage with you and listen to your speech only if they feel you want them to listen. So be enthusiastic, be friendly, and with good posture, and you will be as good to go as anyone can be.

Extra section for: How to handle the questions?

This is probably the scariest thought you will have: What happens if they ask me about this case they have judged and I have absolutely no clue about? Here, I would ask you to bear in mind the following pieces of advice:

Listen to the question carefully, either you or someone else write it down, and, if needed, ask for a repetition or a follow-up question. Most questions are not meant to put you in a position to block you, but rather to bring clarity to the judges about what you want to prove.
If they have you in a corner, hold tight. Some questions will put you in a tricky position, where you may have to contradict yourself or admit things you would not like to admit. In situations like this, you should accept that you may not be 100% right. However, you are still in charge of the narrative, which means you should always bring the discussion to a position that gives you an advantage.

Don’t be defensive. There is a thin line between point 2 and cherry-picking. Always treat both the questions and the arguments presented by the other side at their strongest. Your case should shine in the hardest circumstances, not the weakest.

Final Oral Round

You lucky goose, you just got yourself a ticket to the heart of human rights in Europe, the absolutely gorgeous city of Strasbourg. The FOR is the moment where you feel like a little superstar. You are the best of the best, la crème de la crème, as the French say. A week where you can delight yourself with some good pastries and visits to two institutions (three if you go to the European Parliament).

For this stage of the competition, I have only a couple of pieces of advice:

At this point of the competition, the differences between the 1st place and 18th are minute. If you make a big mistake, you will already know it. But in the vast majority of circumstances, there is only so much that you will be able to control. In a competition like this, there is quite a lot of subjectivity. Thus, focus more on the educational process than the results, because otherwise, you will miss the whole experience.
Be open-minded and learn as much as you can. You are among some of the smartest law students across Europe. Therefore, if you think you’ve got nothing to learn, you are not in the right mindset.

Do networking like there is no tomorrow. You will be among former ECHR judges, employees of the Council of Europe, human rights experts, ambassadors. Do not hesitate even for a second to ask any question that you think may kickstart your career in human rights or international organisations (as long as you do it in a respectful manner).

Life after the Helga Pedersen Moot Court Competition

The worst part about a moot court is that, eventually, it comes to an end. Which means that you have to go back to your ordinary law student life, which is definitely not as glamorous. So, if the finale of a journey is going back to an ordinary life, where no one awaits you with a red carpet, why all the struggle?

Well, my dear friends, let me tell you a little secret. The whole purpose of a moot court like this, which takes you on a journey that lasts anywhere between a couple of months up to one year, is that it changes you in ways you could not even imagine. In my case, this journey gave me a boost of confidence I very much needed in my life, in the sense that my performance anxiety dropped quite notably. Don’t get me wrong, I still procrastinate like there is no tomorrow and I sweat the whole Niagara Falls before an exam or a speech, but it is what you do despite the fear or personal flaws that makes you truly great.

Last Words

I would like to send my deepest thank you to my teammates, Thandi and Isabela, for bearing with me throughout this journey, for all the grilling sessions, stupid inside jokes, ups and downs, and for being the reason why I achieved this result. My result, despite being an individual title, is the result of a team effort.

Additionally, I owe a big thank you to our coach, Miguel, for helping me become a better mootie, Tânia, who took care of all the logistics, while making sure to always send us the greatest vibes, and my beloved friend, Radu, who was my absolute best support system throughout this entire journey (and a mastermind of ECHR law).

If you feel that, after reading this article, you would like to ask me some questions, feel free to reach out to me via LinkedIn. I would be more than happy to chat about this whole experience!

Inside the Mind of the Best Speaker: Reflections on the Helga Pedersen Moot Court Competition.