Abstract
Author approaches the topic of his paper structurally: he first examines manifestations of views on the law and notions, and then goes on to define the topic of the conference terminologically. He makes a distinction between European constitutionalism, which, however, tends to be associated with the European Union in theoretical works, and a more general constitutionalism inherent in processes within the state.
Moreover, constitutionalism may take on the form of political or legal constitutionalism, which does not make the role of constitutional courts easier. And heterarchy - a system without ranked elements and a top - is one of the means for viewing the dialogue between courts, and the dialog between judges.
In conclusion, the author makes five comments by which he summarizes his findings into theses in a highly consistent manner. European constitutionalism thus should not be monistic, and although the role of national constitutional court is not hierarchic vis-a-vis the EU, the courts in question ought to respect the value consistency of European law, and conduct a dialogue with "Luxembourg" using preliminary questions as well.