Discovering EU law through the Myers Moot Court Competition
8 April 2026
Nina Ginard, from the University of Amsterdam, won second place in the inaugural Myers Moot Court Competition and the award for Best Written Pleading. She reflects on her participation in this blog post.
Before beginning my law studies in Amsterdam, I did not imagine that legal advocacy would become such a central part of my academic journey. The more I learned, the more I felt compelled to dive deeper into how EU law actually works in practice. During my first semester of EU law this year, one of my professors forwarded me an opportunity that would allow me to explore exactly that: participating in the Myers Moot Court Competition held in Dublin on 28 February.
Studying EU law can feel overwhelming. It introduces an entirely new vocabulary, new analytical frameworks, and a different way of thinking. Students are expected to quickly develop the ability to interpret legislation, understand court reasoning, and apply legal principles to complex situations. The workload can be intense, often involving hundreds of pages of reading each week just to grasp the foundations of the EU legal system and the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Participating in the Myers Moot Court Competition felt like an opportunity to bridge theory and practice. The case itself was particularly fascinating because it brought together multiple areas of law. It combined elements of procurement law, Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), whistleblowing law, and questions of national strategic autonomy.
The harmonization of whistleblowing law within the EU is still relatively recent, but it plays a crucial role in protecting individuals who disclose information in the public interest. Whistleblower protections are essential for maintaining democratic standards of transparency and accountability within the Union. They also strengthen the enforcement of EU law itself, since many violations, particularly in areas such as public procurement, financial regulation, or environmental protection, often come to light only because individuals inside organizations are willing to report misconduct.
At the same time, the case was situated within the context of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), an area that remains highly sensitive for Member States and closely tied to national sovereignty. This created a compelling legal tension: how far can EU law intervene in areas that are traditionally guarded by national governments?
Exploring this balance between EU oversight and national autonomy made the case feel highly relevant to contemporary debates about fragmentation within the Union, the EU’s democratic legitimacy, and academic discussions surrounding the risk of “competence creep” into policy areas traditionally reserved for Member States.
From a legal perspective, the experience gave me a much clearer understanding of how EU law functions in practice. It helped me identify patterns in legal reasoning, understand the limits of EU competences, and see more clearly how EU institutions interact with Member States when navigating politically sensitive issues.
However, the most memorable part of the experience was not only the legal analysis itself, but the intensity of the courtroom setting. Receiving feedback from the judges and being challenged with questions on the spot required quick thinking and confidence. It pushed me to defend my arguments clearly and anchor myself in the legal reasoning I had developed.
Making it to the final was already an incredible honor. The experience became even more memorable when I had the opportunity to plead in front of Mr Justice Gerard Hogan, Judge of the Supreme Court of Ireland.
At the end of the session, he told me: “You have a great future in advocacy.”
Hearing those words from someone with such experience was a powerful moment for me. It was not only encouraging but also deeply motivating. As a second-year law student still exploring possible career paths, that feedback gave me the confidence to continue pursuing advocacy and legal argumentation in my studies.
The Myers Moot Court Competition was more than just a competition. It was an experience that allowed me to test my legal reasoning, understand EU whistleblowing law in a practical context, and gain confidence in my ability to advocate for a legal position.
I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to participate in the Myers Moot Court Competition and for the encouragement I received throughout the experience. It is something I will carry with me as I continue navigating the academic, legal, and global challenges that lie ahead, and as I continue finding my voice as an advocate.
