2.Because norms are only prima facie applicable, courts enter an application discourse in order to test whether they apply to a specific case or whether they have to give way to another norm in the context of
application.

3.The choice as to the relevant facts and their description is made within application discourses in adjudication. Courts decide which are significant for interpreting the situation in the case at hand; further, they must determine which of the prima facie valid norms are appropriate for deciding the case. In this respect, adjudication is a hermeneutical process whereby norm application is interconnected with a description of the circumstances and a concretization of generally valid norms: interpretive issues are finally decided by the meaning equivalence between the description of facts in the case and the descriptive
component of norms, their application conditions.

4.Habermas introduces the concept of procedure‐dependent certainty of law in order to
resolve the paradoxical relationship between certainty and acceptability

5.What is important in creating a shared paradigm of law is the question of what counts as a “good
reason” in the context of ECJ legal reasoning