ABSTRACT
Analysis of the general principles of European law and jurisprudence of the Supreme Court has highlighted general tendencies and understanding of EU law at the highest level of the judicial system. The jurisprudence of the ordinary courts is a more nuanced reflection of application of EU law in national legal systems. The negative predictions related to the ability of lower courts to apply EU law beyond the textual positivist approach, that is, the argument by Kuhn in general are not confirmed either in the Estonian or the Latvian courts. The overall conclusion on jurisprudence of Estonian and Latvian courts is rather positive. First experiences with the EU mandate of ordinary courts were, however, different in Estonia and Latvia. The central differences are in the type of cases adjudicated, initial engagement with EU law arguments and institutional intra-court cooperation. The applicants, claiming unconformity with ECJ jurisprudence, challenged established administrative practice of the tax office.
