Thread by @armin_steinbach

Tracing the mastermind behind #BVerfG judgment isn't easy. But the judgment draws & quotes heavily from a thoughtful article by Mark Dawson&Ana Bobic @thehertieschool published 2019 in CMLReview

Their criticism became punchline of the #BVerfG ruling against #ECB & #ECJ. Thread

First, Dawson/Bobic criticized that #ECJ already in its #OMT judgment had poorly assessed the evidence provided by #ECB to support OMT

Just as #BVerfG had previously criticized OMT & now argues that ECJ assessment of #PSPP is methodologically flawed (para. 137 of judgment)

...then they point at poor #ECJ analysis of possible alternatives to #PSPP. ECJ should have checked for measures with less burdensome economic side-effects.  

#BVerfG picked up this point in paras 139ff arguing that ECJ unproportionality test is insufficient

Just as poor they found the #ECB in offering insufficient impact assessment on disitributive effects, fundamental rights etc

... an argument similarly pushed by the BVerfG in para 139

...in the section dealing with Article 123 (monetary state financing) #BVerfG quotes Dawson/Bobic four (!) times in order to support its doubts on legality...

And who after all set the house on fire? Dawson/Bobic say that not #BVerfG but #ECJ damages the relationship between the courts...a view emphatically endorsed in the #BVerfG ruling

Dawson/Bobić (2019) 56 CML Rev. 1005

cc @alemannoEU @henrikenderlein @MattHGoldmann @hwieduwilt @repasi @MarijnvdSluis @Alex_J_Thiele @m_kubiciel @Arnd_Diringer @GrundSebastian @WaibelM09 @lucasguttenberg @BachmannRudi @raschnzz