This chapter provides an overview of the debate on the idea of a judicial dialogue, in particular with regard to what this concept could mean for the preliminary reference procedure. It shows that ‘dialogue’ means different things in different contexts but almost never does there seem to be an actual exchange of ideas and opinions between courts about what is supposed to be a correct interpretation of the law. Sometimes courts are referring to each other’s case law to borrow arguments or study the impact of a certain choice of law in another jurisdiction but closer forms of cooperation and collaboration are quite rare. What most inter-judicial communications have in common, though, is a quest for legitimacy. This could also be the purpose of dialogue in the preliminary reference procedure (1) by offering input from national courts to the CJEU in order to come up with the best-reasoned interpretation of EU law; (2) by providing a platform for participation in the process of judicial law making for all the member of the interpretative community and( 3) thereby building a common identity between the EU and national legal orders which is necessary in a multilevel and pluralist legal order.