The aim of this article is to better understand the conditions outlined in the 'CILFIT' judgment and their role in creating a meaningful dialogue about European Union law. For these purposes two distinct views on the relation between language and meaning are utilised, as has been argued for by Ludwig Wittgenstein in his 'Philosophical Investigations'. In the 'CILFIT' judgment both of these views surface, which imply different challenges to the participants of the EU dialogue. In the conclusion, we suggest how these challenges can be met in order to facilitate a mutually meaningful dialogue about EU law.