English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Envisaging an unconditioned prerequisite of reading aloud a testimony of a witness who resides abroad, the provision of Art. 391 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not make the application of this possibility depend on any additional conditions such as, e.g., a long period of residence abroad and the importance of such evidence being read aloud to the pending proceedings, which does not exempt the court from a duty to establish whether the witness’s residence abroad is a real impediment to implement the principle of immediacy. Th e fact that a witness resides abroad should be treated as a suffi cient prerequisite to read aloud his or her testimony given in preparatory proceedings only if his or her examination before the court is impeded in a way comparable to impossibility of serving him or her with summons or with other insurmountable obstacles.

Commentary on the Judgment of the Supreme Court of 18 March 2015 (Ref. No. II KK 318/14)