TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction 

2. The national judges as EU law judges and the Member States’ competence

2.1. The European function of the national judges in the context of the preliminary ruling procedure

2.2. The cornerstones of direct effect and primacy of EU law in the ECJ’s case law

3. The ItCC’s Judgment No. 269/2017, the main issues it posed and how they were progressively eased

3.1. The ItCC’s obiter dictum in Judgment No. 269/2017

3.2. The obiter dictum “on trial”: The refinements and adjustments in the following ItCC’s case law

 4. The post-269’s impact on the dialogue between the ECJ and the ItCC: Between “first” and “last” word

4.1. Any clue on the soundness of the tempered-269 model from the O.D. and Others v INPS case?

4.2. What the “first word” is, and what this means for the triangular relationship between ordinary national courts, the ItCC, and the ECJ: Unresolved issues 

4.3. Recent trends in the ECJ’s case law deserving attention

5. What really matters to the ECJ and why: Insights from the recent rule of law case law

5.1. Preliminary remarks: distinguishing and interesting features of the rule of law crisis case law

5.2. The “advance protection” guaranteed to the national courts’ power to use Article 267 TFEU 

5.3. The ECJ’s “conciliatory” approach: taking the models of constitutional justice of the Member States seriously?

6. Concluding remarks