This paper is a response to a polemical study by A. Novák, who, based on the recently published volumes of Heidegger՚s posthumous work (GA, Vol. 82, 94), presents Heidegger as a critic of phenomenology and of himself. At the same time, Heidegger denied the existence of phenomenology as a doctrine and also distanced himself from the book Being and Time in order to turn to the “history of being”. Author of the response argues that Heidegger՚s reading of Husserl is selective, that in philosophy, and thus in phenomenology, method is inseparable from the system and that phenomenology is present also in Heidegger after the turn. Heidegger not only did not stop with his phenomenological inquiry, but his entire “post-turn” philosophy seems to be the realization of Husserlʼs project of noematics.