The idea that European Union law has a distinct structure and generates a new set of legal concepts and arguments is firmly rooted in the self-consciousness of EU lawyers. One of the most obvious reasons for this is the awareness of the inherently precarious and conflictual character of the process of European integration. The fashioning of EU law through the European Court of justice’s adjudication was therefore meant to render this process less conflictual and more resistant and resilient. This conception is hardly tenable in today’s Europe. European integration is currently undergoing its most acute crisis. In this context, it is worth reviewing the operation of EU law in the light of the notion of ‘disagreement’ or ‘controversy’. How is disagreement dealt with while it cannot be assumed that the Court of Justice of the European Union remains agnostic about political preferences and social conflicts, ideological differences and value choices? This article is an attempt to explore EU law adjudication taking the ideas of disagreement and controversy seriously, as epistemological devices for the exploration of the EU case law.