ABSTRACT
Courts neither rely on the jurisprudence of other foreign courts or European courts nor attempt to interpret the current dispute in the light of the purpose and aims of the Race Equality Directive. The courts did not consider any statistical evidence available on the differences in the amount of pension payments between ethnic groups that may be indicative of indirect discrimination. In support of main argument, the court of first level relied on the jurisprudence of the Estonian Supreme Court that thoroughly analysed the requirement to rely on general principles of EC law in national administrative practice. In the series of third-country national cases litigated in the national courts, the applicants asked the court to interpret conditions and restrictions on the right to obtain long-term resident status narrowly while giving full effect to the objectives of the LTR Directive.
