ABSTRACT
This chapter considers how national ordinary courts define and reconcile conflicting norms of national and European Union (EU) law. It analyses whether conflicts or disagreements emerge between levels of national courts on application of EU law principles; under what conditions and at what level of the national judicial system courts request a preliminary reference from the European courts, and if other institutional factors impact adjudication of EU law. The chapter examines argumentation patterns that national courts adopt to justify application of EU law. National case law is structured not as diverse single cases but rather as a large group of cases that share very similar fact patterns. In Estonia, the main groups of cases that substantively analyse EU law provisions or apply European Court of Justice (ECJ) case law include structural fund subsidies cases, surplus stock fee cases, and discrimination in entitlement to pension and residence rights of third-country nationals.
