This article examines the legal methodology that courts have to employ when they construe domestic law in accordance with European Union directives. It demonstrates that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has set up autonomous ‘European methodological rules’. These rules apply together with national legal methods. The relationship between both regimes can be described with the concepts of overlapping, intervention, and Europeanization from the inside. The article thus holds that the doctrine of consistent interpretation possesses a hybrid methodology. The reanalysis of the CJEU’s case law offers answers to some unresolved questions. The article shows how consistent interpretation affects national principles of interpretation. It demonstrates the extent to which domestic judges are required to depart from traditional methods of construction and to what extent European methodological rules broaden the limits of the judicial function as accepted under national law. The contra legem limit is defined, and some of its misinterpretations in legal scholarship are highlighted.

中文翻译：

---

欧盟一致解释原则的混合方法

本文考察了法院在根据欧盟指令解释国内法时必须采用的法律方法。它表明欧盟法院 (CJEU) 已经建立了自主的“欧洲方法论规则”。这些规则与国家法律方法一起适用。两种政权之间的关系可以用重叠、干预和内部欧洲化的概念来描述。因此，本文认为一致解释学说具有一种混合方法论。对欧洲法院判例法的重新分析为一些悬而未决的问题提供了答案。这篇文章展示了一致解释如何影响国家解释原则。它表明国内法官需要在多大程度上背离传统的解释方法，以及欧洲方法论规则在多大程度上扩大了国内法所接受的司法职能的限制。反法律限制被定义，并强调了它在法律学术中的一些误解。