This article offers a reconstruction and assessment of the emerging rebellion of European constitutional courts against the exceptionless supremacy of European Union (EU) law. It presents the ontological theories of supremacy and how the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) overcame the first two major challenges of its history: the existential challenge of canonizing the general doctrine of supremacy and the Solange challenge of national fundamental rights. It provides an account of the emerging ultra vires challenge, including its root cause and evolvement, and provides an assessment and sets out proposals. The article demonstrates that the crux of the matter is not the primacy of EU law but the interpretive primacy of the CJEU. It argues that the rebellion was triggered by the perception that the CJEU case law features a declining normative and an increasing policy character. The debate about the CJEU's evolutionary interpretation, in a certain sense, parallels US constitutional law's debate between originalism and the living constitution, with the difference that the EU is a pluralist legal order.

本文对欧洲宪法法院对欧盟（EU）法律的绝对至高无上地位的反抗进行了重构和评估。它介绍了至上主义的本体论理论，以及欧盟法院 (CJEU) 如何克服其历史上的前两个主要挑战：将至上主义的一般原则推崇的存在主义挑战和国家基本权利的索朗日挑战。它介绍了新出现的越权挑战，包括其根本原因和演变，并提供了评估并提出了建议。文章表明，问题的关键不在于欧盟法律的首要性，而在于欧盟法院的解释性首要性。它认为，这种反叛是由于人们认为欧洲法院判例法的规范性下降和政策性增强而引发的。关于欧盟法院进化解释的争论，在某种意义上，类似于美国宪法关于原旨主义和活宪法的争论，不同之处在于欧盟是一个多元化的法律秩序。