The primacy of EU law continues to be challenged by domestic courts relying on the notion of constitutional identity. These challenges are no longer limited to the Solange case law of the German Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG) and the controlimiti doctrine of the Italian Corte Costituzionale. More recently, the Hungarian Constitutional Court introduced the notion of ‘historical constitutional identity’ – at a time when the rule of law and independence of the judiciary are in retreat in several parts of the EU. Against this backdrop, this article argues that the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) missed a formidable opportunity to clarify the outer limits of constitutional identity under Article 4(2) of the Treaty on European Union in Taricco II. Given prudential considerations as well as parallel legislative developments, it can be explained why the CJEU chose to side-step the issue. However, in the Corte Costituzionale, the CJEU found a cooperative and EU law-friendly interlocutor which would have allowed it to clarify these limits on its own terms. The CJEU cannot and should not hide from this issue forever. The next domestic court to raise this issue may be less interested in judicial dialogue and more in undermining the primacy of EU law in ever more extensive ways.

中文翻译：

---

宪法身份的难以捉摸的轮廓：塔里科作为错失的机会

依靠宪法身份概念的国内法院继续挑战欧盟法律的最高地位。这些挑战不再仅限于德国联邦议院（BVerfG）的索兰日判例法和意大利科尔特Costuzuzale的控制主义理论。最近，匈牙利宪法法院提出了“历史性宪法身份”的概念-当时欧盟的一些地区法治和司法独立性正在退缩。在这种背景下，本文认为，欧盟法院（CJEU）错过了一个难得的机会，可以根据《塔里克第二次欧洲联盟条约》第4条第2款阐明宪法认同的外部界限。考虑到审慎的考虑以及平行的立法发展，可以解释为什么欧洲法院选择回避该问题。但是，在欧洲法院，欧洲法院发现了一个合作社和欧盟法律友好的对话者，这将使它可以自行解释这些限制。欧盟法院不能也不应永远躲避这一问题。下一个提出这一问题的国内法院可能对司法对话的兴趣减少了，而对以越来越广泛的方式破坏欧盟法律的首要地位更感兴趣。