This book discusses how the plurality of legal norms operating in the European Union can be balanced to produce a functioning, sustainable and legitimate legal system. Presenting a conceptual framework for assessing and comparing transformations of national judicial systems in the context of EU membership, the book contributes to the EU legal theoretical debate on the relationship between 'authority' and 'coherence'. The author develops an original analytical framework of coherence to assess the application of EU law by national courts and uses interdisciplinary scientific methods and research design that combine legal doctrinal and social science methodology to the study of 'classical' legal questions. Providing an extensive database of 2004-2009 national judgments of national courts in Latvia and Estonia, the book offers an extensive comparative review of the jurisprudence of constitutional and supreme courts, as well as providing insight into the jurisprudence of ordinary national courts. It will appeal to legal scholars and political scientists studying courts and jurisprudence.
’This is an interesting and thorough analysis of the reception of EU law in Estonia and Latvia. The author examines the adjudication of EU rights before national courts within a sound theoretical framework, casts light on the concept of coherence of EU law, and provides an original case study on the effect of EU law norms to post-communist legal systems. This book is a very valuable addition to the EU law bibliography.’ Takis Tridimas, Queen Mary, University of London, UK ’This book is unique not only because of the sophisticated and in depth analysis of adjudication of EU law by Latvian and Estonian courts but also because of the original manner in which this analysis is embedded in a much broader conceptual framework. The book itself is a breath of fresh air.’ Deirdre Curtin, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands ’Evas’ book has a lot to offer to both lay readers and experts in post-accession legal developments in the new Member States.’ Common Market Law Review