Read on Twitter
In case you missed it (I did) - on June 15, the @BVerfG (German Constitutional Court) dismissed a challenge against the @ecb& #39;s Corporate Sector Purchase Programme (CSPP): https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2020/06/rk20200615_2bvr007120.html">https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDoc... (only in 
https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🇩🇪" title="Flagge von Deutschland" aria-label="Emoji: Flagge von Deutschland">)
A short thread 1/x
A short thread 1/x
The claimants essentially argued that (i) the @ecb CSPP violated the democratic principles, since the @ecb/ @bundesbank conduct large-scale bond purchases without the involvement of the https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🇩🇪" title="Flagge von Deutschland" aria-label="Emoji: Flagge von Deutschland"> Parliament & (ii) the CSPP is an illegal economic policy (rather than mon pol) measure. 2/x
The @BVerfG found the challenge to be inadmissible (i.e. on procedural, not on merit grounds), since the (subject of the) complaint was inadmissible and the complaint insufficiently explained/justified why the CSPP constituted an (illegal) ultra-vires act. 3/x
Somewhat in contrast to the PSPP ruling, the @BVerfG held that acts of EU institutions could not be directly challenged in the @BVerfG. The requirements for an ultra-vires action (the exception to this general rule) have not been proven by the claimants in this case. 4/x
The @BVerfG did however imply that the CSPP would be an economic policy measure (subject to ultra-vires control) if the Eurosystem& #39;s purchase would constitute "direct aid" (in a competition law sense). In other words, the @ecb must ensure neutrality of purchases. 5/x
The perhaps most important part of the judgement relates to the inadmissibility of the complaint due to lack of sufficient explanation/justification. First, the @BVerfG noted that the claimants do not explain why the CSPP constitutes an (illegal) economic policy measure. 6/x
Second, and related, the @BVerfG considered the complaint& #39;s explanations regarding the breach of EU competition law insufficient. Third, the complaint did not show how the CSPP selectively aids certain companies and thus leads to (challengeable) distortions of competition. 7/x
To sum up, the @BVerfG sensibly restricted a (relatively) unsubstantiated challenge against the @ecb& #39;s CSPP. Imo the court could have thrown out the PSPP challenge on similar procedural grounds (but, as we know, chose not to). 8/x
