This article examines the 2/2022 PJE Unity Decision of the Curia from the perspective of divergent theoretical and dogmatical views expressed in minority opinions. The case study compares the dissenting opinions and the majority opinion of the judges and aims at demonstrating the fact that theoretical disagreement between judges has a huge impact on legal practice and on the issue of how judges decide cases. The hypothesis of the article is that – in hard legal cases – the reason for the differing opinions is the different theoretical convictions of judges. It seems evident that two legal practitioners, who have different views on cardinal issues of law, such as the concept or the purpose of law, interpret legal norms differently. Using the method of qualitative case analysis, the article analyses the arguments appearing in the justification of the decision.