Evaluation of Member State Provisions Addressing Land Policy and Restitution by the European Commission

The scope of action of EU Member States’ land policies lies at the intersection of positive and negative integration. Therefore, if a Member State restricts the ownership and use of agricultural land, it implies both the legitimate restriction of fundamental freedoms and that it achieves the targets listed under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) on improving the quality of living for farmers in keeping with the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Despite this, it is worrisome that the EU’s control over negative integration does not allow Member States to create sustainable regulations. In contrast, the EU law leaves it entirely to the Member States to introduce restitution measures vis-à-vis the properties that were confiscated before their accession. The EU’s control prohibits direct discrimination against the citizens of other Member States. Under certain circumstances, according to the European Commission, the general principles of EU law and the provisions of the Charter can help individuals enforce restitution provisions. Bearing this in mind, we analysed the practice of the European Commission, its statements, and procedures against Member States, given that these are based on professional and/or political considerations. We examine the practice of the Commission and the CJEU vis-à-vis a Hungarian legislation on the so-called ‘zsebszerződések’. We also propose recommendations.

MspA Porin as a Local Nanopore Probe for Membrane-bound Proteins

Nanopore sensing is based on detection and analysis of nanopore transient conductance changes induced by analyte capture. We have recently shown that α-Synuclein (αSyn), an intrinsically disordered, membrane-active, neuronal protein implicated in Parkinson disease, can be reversibly captured by the VDAC nanopore. The capture process is a highly voltage dependent complexation of the two proteins where transmembrane potential drives the polyanionic C-terminal domain of αSyn into VDAC--exactly the mechanism by which generic nanopore-based interrogation of proteins and polynucleotides proceeds. The complex formation, and the motion of αSyn in the nanopore, thus may be expected to be only indirectly dependent on the pore identity. Here, we confirm this prediction by demonstrating that when VDAC is replaced with a different transmembrane pore, the engineered mycobacterial porin M2MspA, all the qualitative features of the αSyn/nanopore interaction are preserved. The rate of αSyn capture by M2MspA rises exponentially with the applied field, while the residence time displays a crossover behavior, indicating that at voltages >50 mV M2MspA-bound αSyn largely undergoes translocation to the other side of the membrane. The translocation is directly confirmed using the selectivity tag method, in which the polyanionic C-terminal and neutral N-terminal regions of αSyn alter the selectivity of the M2MspA channel differently, allowing direct discrimination of translocation vs retraction for single αSyn molecules. We thus prove that the physical model of the motion of disordered protein chains in the nanopore confinement and the selectivity tag technique are not limited to VDAC but are broadly applicable to nanopore-based protein detection, analysis, and separation technologies.

Rien que des mots: Counteracting homophobic speech in European and U.S. law

Adopting a comparative perspective, this article examines legal means and practices of challenging homophobic speech in European and U.S. law. This exercise revolves around the study of major cases concerning homophobic speech from the law of the European Court of Human Rights and broader legal framework within the Council of Europe (the CoE), the Court of Justice of the European Union (EU) as well as the United States Supreme Court (along with a broader scrutiny of U.S. law in comparative perspective with European (CoE and EU law) in recent years. The article concludes that the concepts of (1) hate speech (in constitutional, administrative and criminal settings) (2) direct discrimination and (3) harassment (in labour and anti-discrimination law) will be central in the strategic litigation of LGBT organizations seeking to redress the climate of homophobia via various legal avenues in both Europe and the U.S. While in the settings of European law, all three concepts – depending on the context – can benefit victims of homophobia in their judicial redress, U.S. law offers coherent protection in its employment law framework, even though this remains in need of further strengthening.

Access to healthcare for people with disabilities in South Africa: Bad at any time, worse during COVID-19?

People with disabilities, especially those living in low- and middle-income countries, experience significant challenges in accessing healthcare services and support. At times of disasters and emergencies, people with disabilities are further marginalised and excluded. During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, many people with disabilities are unable to access healthcare facilities, receive therapeutic interventions or rehabilitation, or gain access to medication. Of those who are able to access facilities, many experience challenges, and at times direct discrimination, accessing life-saving treatment such as intensive care unit admission and ventilator support. In addition, research has shown that people with disabilities are at higher risk of contracting the virus because of factors that include the need for interpersonal caregivers and living in residential facilities. We explore some of the challenges that people with disabilities residing in South Africa currently experience in relation to accessing healthcare facilities.

The 'associative' discrimination fiction: part 1

Associative discrimination is a consequence of the open formulas used in the UK (and EU) equality legislation to define direct discrimination. The treatment needs only to be ‘because of a protected characteristic’ (such as race, sexual orientation, etc) rather than because of his (or her) protected characteristic. Hence, a white worker dismissed for marrying a black person could sue for direct (racial) discrimination. The open formula is not limited to such cases and, so, treating associative discrimination as a term of art is a mistake, as this could unnecessarily restrict the reach of the deliberately open legislative formula. This article identifies the Supreme Court judgment in Lee v Ashers as an example of this mistake. It further asserts that any compromise for conflicting rights is found in the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998), and not by distorting the definition of discrimination.

AGEISM AS A LATENT FORM OF AGE DISCRIMINATION

. The article is devoted to the study of ageism as a form of age discrimination. The peculiarity of age discrimination is that anyone can become its object after reaching the appropriate age. The main thing is that ageism has a dual nature. The first is the level of perception and stereotypes and the second is the level of certain ones. At the same time, the influence on the change of stereotypes is possible only through the sphere of indirect influence - the formation of appropriate cultural norms that would be in opposite to such stereotypes. Also, discriminatory practices may be subject to the legal regulation. It is noted that some of these practices have a marginal origin, because they are on the border between actions that can be clearly defined as direct discrimination and actions that constitute covert discrimination. At the same time, both formalization and prevention of hidden discrimination are very complicated. The possibility of implementing special measures (affirmative actions) to reduce the impact of agediscriminatory practices is indicated in the article. The study of the problem of ageism emphasizes the special nature of discriminatory practices in the field of labor law. The practice of restricting the employment of persons who have reached a certain age is the most pronounced. Such limitations should be considered as discriminatory practices, except when they can be justified. However, such justification must be proven for each specific type of restriction. The concept of presumption of prohibition of age discrimination is offered. The article emphasizes the need of the problem of age discrimination for future researches, including through sociological means. Also, it is necessary to monitor and revise legislation and bills in terms of age restrictions on certain activities.

INDEX OF UNEQUAL TREATMENT OF THE DISABLED. A PRECEDENT JUDGMENT OF THE CJEU

An employer’s practice of paying a salary supplement to disabled employees who submitted a disability certificate after the date chosen by that employer and not taking into account disabled employees who submitted such a certificate before that date, may constitute direct discrimination. It is capable of definitively preventing this time condition from being met in a clearly defined group of workers, consisting of all disabled workers whose disabilities the employer must have known about when the practice was introduced.

Cautious Optimism: Fraser v Canada (Attorney General)

Adverse effects discrimination arises when a law that appears to be neutral on its face has a disproportionate and negative impact on members of a group identified by a protected ground.1 The discrimination is usually not as easy to see as it is in cases of direct discrimination, where distinctions are drawn by a law, program, or policy. This may be why Fraser v Canada (Attorney General)2 is only the third adverse effects claim under section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms3 to succeed since section 15 came into force in 1985.4 Fraser is notable simply because it is the first successful adverse effects claim in twenty-two years.5 1 Jonnette Watson Hamilton & Jennifer Koshan. “Adverse Impact: The Supreme Court’s Approach to Adverse Effects Discrimination under Section 15 of the Charter” (2015) 19:2 Rev Const Stud Studies 191 at 196 [“Adverse Impact”]. 2 2020 SCC 28 [Fraser]. 3 Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 [Charter]. 4 The other two cases in which adverse effects claims were successful were Eldridge v British Columbia, [1997] 3 SCR 624, 151 DLR (4th) 577 [Eldridge cited to SCR] and Vriend v Alberta, [1998] 1 SCR 493, 156 DLR (4th) 385 [Vriend cited to SCR]. 5 At least five adverse effects claims made under section 15 of the Charter failed in the intervening twentytwo years: Health Services and Support — Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn v British Columbia, 2007 SCC