BakerA. (2006), ‘Comparison Tainted by Justification: Against a “compendious question” in Art. 14 discrimination’, Public Law, 476–497.
2.
BakerA. (2008), ‘Proportional, not Strict, Scrutiny: Against a U.S. “Suspect Classifications” Model under Article 14 ECHR in the UK’, American Journal of Comparative Law, 56, 847–893.
3.
BarnardC. (2005), ‘Annotation of Bidar (The Queen, ex parte Dany Bidar, v London Borough of Ealing, Secretary of State for Education and Skills’, Common Market Law Review, 42, 1465–1489.
4.
BrandM. (2005), ‘Case Law: C-209/03, The Queen (on the application of Dany Bidar) v London Borough of Ealing, Secretary of State for Education and Skills’, Columbia Journal of European Law, 12(1), 293–304.
5.
CousinsM. (2008), ‘Widow's Pension and Gender Equality: Runkee v United Kingdom’, Journal of Social Security Law, 15, 90–98.
6.
DouganM. (2006), ‘The Constitutional Dimension to the Case Law on Union Citizenship’, European Law Review, 31(5), 613–641.
7.
DouganM. (2008), ‘Cross-Border Educational Mobility and the Exportation of Student Financial Assistance’, European Law Review, 33(5), 723–738.
8.
GolynkerO. (2006), ‘Student loans: The European concept of social justice according to Bidar, European Law Review, 31, 390–401.