natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Projekty, kterï se sna™ily b̅t ¶evropskïƒ, dosèhly urｲi-tïho ÿspｸchu a jak prokèzaly monitorovacó nèvþtｸvy, zèvｸreｲnï zprèvy a hodnocenó, zaｲalo se projevovat rostoucó porozumｸnó pro hodnotu ¶evropskïƒ akce.
However, those projects that did make e . o r t s t o ` b e E u r op e a n ' a c h i e v e d some success and, as monitoring visits, «nalreportsandevaluationsdemonstrated,there began to be a growing understanding of the value of truly `European' action.
Z projektヮ vypl̅valo, ™e:
Projects reported that:
‡ jsou schopny rozpoznat nejen rozdóly mezi problïmy, odezvami a zpヮsoby prèce v jednot-liv̅ch ｲlensk̅ch stètech, ale zèroveﾏ konvergenci, kterè vede k ÿspｸþnïmu sdólenó metodik a nèstrojヮ;
‡ they were able to identify not only di.erencesbetweentheproblems,responsesandwaysof working among Member States but also points of convergence, leading to successful sharing of methodologies and tools;
¶V̅zkumnó pracovnóci z rヮzn̅ch zemó a s rヮzn̅mi pracovnómi zvyklostmi pou™óvali metody tak, jak to z vlastnóho hlediska pova™ovali za v̅hodnï, proto je shromè™dｸn̅ materièl pomｸrnｸ neuspoﾖèdan̅.
Despite this, these di.erenceswereanalysedateachjointmeetingandputintoperspectivewithwork habits on the one hand and with the context, reception in the «eld,reactionofauthorities,etc. on the other.'
Navzdory tomu byly tyto rozdóly na ka™dïm spoleｲnïm setkènó analyzovèny a dèny do souvislosti s pracovnómi zvyklostmi na stranｸ jednï a okolnostmi, pracó v terïnu, re-akcó ÿﾖadヮ atd. na stranｸ druhï.ƒ [projekt 99/025/C]
[Project 99/025/C]
‡ hodnota srovnèvacó anal̅zy › napﾖóklad prèvnóch rèmcヮ t̅kajócóch se sexuèlnóho nèsiló › zv̅þila porozumｸnó a schopnost prosazovat revizi a vzèjemnï slaｵovènó;
‡ the value of comparative analysis ̌ for example of legal frameworks relating to sexual violence ̌ enhanced understanding and the ability to advocate for review and harmoni-sation;
‡ potencièl pro pﾖedèvènó poznatkヮ a vzèjemnï sdólenó informacó, metodik a nèstrojヮ byl vóce zﾖejm̅ potï, co se organizace navzèjem poznaly a lïpe chèpaly svï speci«ckïsituace a potﾖeby;
‡ the potential for transfer of knowledge and the sharing of information, methodologies and tools was more evident as organisations got to know each other and understood better their speci«csituationsandneeds;
‡ byly schopny pﾖekroｲit jazykovï bariïry a vytvoﾖit nｸco, co bylo nｸkter̅mi projekty naz̅-vèno ¶jazykem DAPHNEƒ, tj. komunikaci zalo™enou na spoleｲnïm chèpènó jednotliv̅ch otèzek a reakcó.
‡ they were able to transcend language barriers and develop what some projects called `Daphne language', i.e. communication based on common understanding of the issues and responses.
¶Otèzka pﾖekladu ｲi tlumoｲenó takovïho pojmu jako je ¶vulnerabilityƒ, tj. ohro™enost ｲi zranitel-nost, je sama o sobｸ dost komplexnó.
`The question of translating or interpreting a concept such as ``vulnerability'' is complex in itself.
Pﾖesto™e se jeþtｸ musóme hodnｸ nauｲit o tom, co to znamenè ¶evropsk̅ projektƒ, nachèzóme v roce 2000 ji™ jasnï znèmky toho, ™e se z mnoh̅ch organizacó dóky podpoﾖe DAPHNE staly instituce, kterï majó spóþe evropsk̅ ne™ nèrodnó nebo dokonce jen móstnó dopad.
Although much remained to be learned about what being a `European project' entailed, there were clear signs by 2000 that many organisations had grown, as a result of Daphne support, into organisations whose impact was European rather than national or even local.
Stèle tu vþak zヮstèvè pﾖesvｸdｲenó, ™e by program DAPHNE nemｸl b̅t jen krètkodob̅m me-chanismem «nancovènó,aleirèmcem,vnｸm™bybylomo™nïzóskèvatinformaceonèsiló a o tom, jak mu ｲelit z hlediska ochrany, prevence a podpory obｸtó, a na zèkladｸ toho vypra-covat ﾖeþenó tohoto celoevropskïho problïmu.
There remained a concern, however, that the Daphne programme should not be just a short-term funding mechanism but a framework in which learning ̌ about violence and how to respond to it in terms of protection, prevention and support for victims ̌ might develop and build into a comprehensive response to this EU-wide problem.
Klóｲov̅mi slovy pro zb̅vajócó roky programu DAPHNE proto zヮstèvajó ¶vytvèﾖenó/rozvojƒ, ¶bu-dovènóƒ, ¶adaptovènóƒ a ¶rozþiﾖovènóƒ.
The key words for the remaining years of the Daphne programme, therefore, became `devel-opment', `building', `adapting' and `extending'.
V̅bｸrovè komise se zamｸﾖila na projekty, jejich™ cólem bylo pﾖidat hodnotu ji™ vykonanï prèci:
The selection panel focused on projects that aimed to add value to work that had already been done, by:
‡ hodnocenóm a testovènóm v̅sledkヮ, jejich adaptovènóm a dalþóm rozvojem;
‡ evaluating and testing output and results, adapting them and taking them further;
‡ aktualizacó v̅zkumu a jeho rozþóﾖenóm tak, aby pokr̅val vþechny ｲlenskï zemｸ a, bude-li to mo™nï, kandidètskï zemｸ a zemｸ ESVO/EHP (+ Kypr, Maltu, Turecko);
‡ updating research and broadening it to cover all Member States and, where possible, can-didate countries and EFTA/EEA countries (plus Cyprus, Malta and Turkey);
‡ pﾖechodem od studió a sbｸru dat k anal̅ze a, na zèkladｸ toho, doporuｲenóm a poznatkヮm na evropskï ÿrovni;
‡ moving from studies and data collection to analysis and, on the basis of this, recommenda-tions and lessons at European level;
‡ þirþóm vyu™óvènóm þkolicóch a vzdｸlèvacóch modulヮ, materièlヮ pro zv̅þenó povｸdomó o pro-blïmu a provoznóch nèstrojヮ, napﾖóklad dotaznókヮ;
‡ broader application of training and education modules, awareness-raising materials, and operational tools such as questionnaires;
‡ sestavovènóm a dokumentovènóm zdrojヮ zpﾖóstupnｸn̅ch prostﾖednictvóm DAPHNE a dal-þóch zdrojヮ (internet, lidskï zdroje, publikace, audiovizuèlnó mïdia, metodika a balóky þko-lenó atd.)
‡ compilation and documentation of resources made available by Daphne and other sources (web-based, human, publications, audiovisual, training methodologies and packages, etc.).
Pokud by to bylo mo™nï, bylo by zèroveﾏ tﾖeba posólit partnerstvó, rozþóﾖit sótｸ a zlepþit kapa-citu prostﾖednictvóm trvalï v̅mｸny informacó a pﾖópadnｸ i personèlu, pravidelnｸjþóch nèvþtｸv v terïnu v jin̅ch ｲlensk̅ch stètech a lepþóch, vóce cólen̅ch konferencó, pracovnóch seminèﾖヮ a dalþóch pracovnóch schヮzó.
If this were to be possible, it would also be necessary to reinforce partnerships, expand net-works and improve capacity, including through the continued exchange of information and perhaps s t a . , m o r e r e g u l a r « e l d v i s i t s i nffo t h e r Mffe m b e r S t a t e s , a n d mstu c h i m p r o v e d , m o r e t a r g e t e d conferences, workshops and other working meetings.
Objevily se rovnｸ™ novï v̅zvy pro pﾖedlo™enó projektヮ, kterï by mohly vytvoﾖit hodnoticó ukazatele, podpoﾖit anal̅zu sprèvn̅ch postupヮ a dokonｲit mapo-vènó a sbｸr dat tak, aby existoval komplexnó obraz nèsiló v Evropｸ a vþech jeho forem.
There were also new calls for projects that might develop evaluation indicators, support analysis of good practice and com-plete mapping and data collection exercises so that there would exist a comprehensive picture of violence in all its forms in Europe.
Dosa™enó tohoto cóle v rèmci hranic «nancovènóprojektusestaloskuteｲnouv̅zvou,ajakprogram DAPHNE pokroｲil a poｲet pﾖedlo™en̅ch nèvrhヮ se dóky v̅zvｸ Komise dosèhnout zlepþenó zvyþoval, doþlo k v̅raznïmu omezenó rozpoｲtヮ a mo™nost neÿspｸchu nebo nutnos-ti ｲinnost nedokonｲit se pro nｸkterï organizace stala realitou.
Achieving this within the limits of project funding became a real challenge and, as the Daphne programme progressed and submissions did rise to the challenge posed by the Commission's encouragement to improve, budgets became severely squeezed and the possibility of failure or incomplete activity became a reality for some organisations.
Zjistilo se vþak, ™e nｸkterï oblasti ｲinnosti zaｲaly b̅t zanedbèvèny, zejmïna pomｸrnｸ nèkladnï aktivity externóho hodnocenó (obvykle vy™adujócó dosti drahïho externóho konzultanta nebo instituci) a þóﾖenó informacó (ｲasto byl zanedbèvèn pﾖedevþóm pﾖeklad, co™ omezilo þóﾖenó informacó a byla pﾖijómèna podivnè rozhodnutó v souvislosti s otèzkou v jakïm jazyce publikace zveﾖejﾏovat › projekt s belgick̅mi, italsk̅mi a þpanｸlsk̅mi partnery se na-pﾖóklad rozhodl vydat vþechny svï publikace pouze v angliｲtinｸ namósto toho, aby dal pﾖed-nost jednomu z jazykヮ partnerヮ!).
The Commission's project monitoring visits therefore focused more urgently on helping organisations to manage their budgets and to «ndnewwaystoachieveresultswithoutputtingthebudgetunderpressure.Nevertheless, it was observed that some areas of activity began to be neglected, especially the relatively expensive activities of external evaluation (usually needing a fairly costly exter-nal consultant or institution) and dissemination (translation, especially, was often neglected, thus limiting dissemination, and strange decisions were made concerning the languages of dissemination ̌ for example, a project with Belgian, Italian and Spanish partners decided to
‡ v roce 2002 byla vytvoﾖena ¶knihovnaƒ materièlヮ vypracovan̅ch s cólem zv̅þit povｸdomó o problïmu. Tyto materièly byly vydèny jak v tiþtｸnï, tak v elektronickï verzi, pﾖiｲem™ elek-tronickè verze tｸchto dokumentヮ byla ulo™ena na webov̅ch strènkèch.
‡ a `library' of awareness-raising materials that had been produced in projects was begun in 2002 and produced both as a printed resource and in electronic form posted to the website.
To umo™nilo orga-nizacóm stahovat gra«ckïsouboryprov̅robuplakètヮavzkazobojiprotinèsilóvytvoﾖen̅a vyzkouþen̅ v rèmci jednoho projektu mohl b̅t pﾖedèn i v dalþóch ｲlensk̅ch stètech › s minimèlnómi v̅daji a maximèlnó konzistencó;
This allowed organisations to download graphics «lesforposters,forexample,sothatananti-violence message developed and tested in one project could be replicated across other Member States with minimum expense and maximum consistency;
‡ byla vytvoﾖena ﾖada ¶ilustrativnóch pﾖópadヮƒ jako pﾖóklad toho, jakï typy projektヮ DAPHNE «nancoval,atakïscólemukèzat,jaktytoprojektyuspｸlyajak̅byljejichdopad;
‡ a series of `illustrative cases' was produced to give examples of the kinds of projects that Daphne had funded and to show how they had succeeded and what their impact had been;
‡ znovu se objevila myþlenka DAPHNE News, a to prostﾖednictvóm pravideln̅ch sdｸlenó zasó-lan̅ch elektronickou poþtou vþem organizacóm, kterï s DAPHNE spolupracovaly. Tato sdｸ-lenó obsahovala informace o novｸ zalo™en̅ch projektech, o aktualizaci webov̅ch strènek a dalþóch v̅znamn̅ch udèlostech.
‡ the idea of Daphne News was reprised through regular e-mail communications to all or-ganisations who had worked with Daphne, containing information on newly funded projects, updates to the website, and other milestones.
Projekty v™dy musely zajistit spolu«nancovènósv̅chnèkladヮvev̅þiminimèlnｸ20procent a ve vｸtþó móﾖe se provèdｸly monitorovacó nèvþtｸvy s cólem podpoﾖit organizace v hledènó trvalïho zdroje « n a n c o v è n ó t a k , a b y ｲ i n n o s t « n a n c o v a n è D A P H N E m o h l a p o k r a ｲ o v a t b e z p o d - p o r y Komise.
Projects had always had to identify a minimum of 20 % co-«nancingfortheirprojects,andincreasingly monitoring visits were used to encourage them to seek ongoing funding so that their Daphne-funded activity could continue without Commission support.
Tam, kde to bylo mo™nï, dochèzelo k v̅mｸnｸ myþlenek o mo™n̅ch zdrojóch «-nancovènó, trvalï «nancovènóvþaknadèlepﾖedstavovaloproblïm.
Where possible, ideas were shared on where funding might be sourced; nevertheless, ongoing funding re-mained a challenge.
V samotnï Komisi se poｲètkem roku 2002 zva™ovala budoucnost programu DAPHNE a mo™-nost jeho pﾖópadnïho obnovenó.
At the Commission itself, consideration was given as early as 2002 to the future of the Daphne programme and its possible renewal.
Poznatky ze sedmiletï zkuþenosti DAPHNE byly zaｲlenｸny do pﾖedbｸ™n̅ch nèvrhヮ, vｲetnｸ potﾖeby vｸtþóho mno™stvó «nanｲnóchprostﾖedkヮ,zekter̅chby bylo mo™nï « n a n c o v a t v ｸ t þ ó p r o j e k t y . K r o m t o h ob y i K o m i s e m o h l a a k t i v n ｸ z a d è v a t p r o - j e k t y , kterï by zaplﾏovaly zjiþtｸnï mezery majócó v̅znam pro Spoleｲenstvó, je™ vþak nebyly pokryty pﾖedklèdajócómi organizacemi.
Lessons from the seven-year Daphne experience were built into preliminary proposals, including the need for increased funding to allow bigger projects to be supported, and some means of allowing the Commission to actively commis-sion projects to « l l g a ps i d e n t i « e d a s i m po r t a n t t o t h e Cffo m mstu n i tffy bu t nffo tp r o po s e d b y o r - g a n i s a t i o n s .
¶Program DAPHNE je uznèvèn jako dヮle™it̅ multidisciplinèrnó nèstroj v kampani proti nèsiló, kter̅ si zóskal mezinèrodnó uznènó.ƒ
`The Daphne programme is acknowledged as an important multidisciplinary instrument in the campaign against violence and it has acquired international renown.'
Zprèva Evropskïmu parlamentu o stﾖednｸdobï revizi programu DAPHNE 2000›2003 provèdｸnï V̅borem pro prèva ™en a rovnï pﾖóle™itosti
Resolution of the European Parliament on the mid-term review of the Daphne programme 2000›03
Sedm let ｲinnosti, 303 «nancovan̅chprojektヮ,stovkyorganizacóatisócelidó,jich™setatoprè-ce dot̅kè, a pﾖesto DAPHNE nikdy pojem ¶nèsilóƒ pﾖesnｸ nede«noval.
Seven years of action, 303 projects funded, hundreds of organisations working and thousands of people touched by this work, and still Daphne has never de«ned`violence'.
U™ od poｲètku tu vþak bylo zjiþtｸnó, ™e nèsiló nenó jedna jedinè vｸc a pokus de«novathobyomezilnejenspektrumpﾖedklèdan̅chnèvrhヮ,ale,atojedヮle-™itï, i vnómènó toho, co nèsiló vytvèﾖó a co nikoli.
From the outset, it was recognised that violence is not one single thing and that attempting to de«neitwouldonlylimitnotonlysubmissionsreceivedbut,impor-tantly, perception of what constituted violence and what did not.
Namósto toho se iniciativa a program DAPHNE sna™ó zjistit, jak nèsiló chèpou sami lidï v Evropｸ › vedoucó projektヮ, partneﾖi, zÿｲastnｸnó i pﾖó-jemci v̅hod z ｲinnostó « n a n c o v a n ̅ c h D A P H N E › a z m a p o v a t t a k c e l ï s pe k t r u m ｲ i n n o s t ó , s t r u k - t u r , rèmcヮ a pﾖóstupヮ, kterï jsou v Evropｸ naz̅vèny ¶nèsilómƒ.
Instead, the Daphne initia-tive and programme sought to explore violence as understood by the people of Europe them-selves ̌ leaders, partners, participants and b e n e « c i a r i e s o f D a p h n e - f u n d e d a c t i o n s ̌ a n d t hffu s to map out the whole gamut of actions, structures, frameworks and attitudes that are `violence' in Europe.
Nèsledkem toho nebyla do rozhodnutó (10) zaklèdajócó program DAPHNE 2000›2003 zaｲlenｸna ™èdnè de«nice.Existujevþakvþeobecnïprohlèþenó,kterïobsahujev̅ｲeturｲit̅chdヮsledkヮnèsiló, zejmïna s ohledem na jeho nepﾖózniv̅ dopad na zdravó, proto™e prèvnó zèklad progra-mu spadè do oblasti veﾖejnïho zdravó.
There is consequently no de«nitionofviolenceincludedinthedecision (10) establishing the Daphne programme 2000›03. There is, however, a general statement indicating some of the implications of violence and relating it in particular to negative impact on health, since the legal base for the programme was within the ambit of public health.
Toto rozhodnutó ﾖókè:
The decision says:
¶Fyzickï, sexuèlnó a psychologickï nèsiló proti dｸtem, mlède™i a ™enèm pﾖedstavuje poruþenó jejich prèva na ™ivot, bezpeｲó, svobodu, dヮstojnost, fyzickou a emocionèlnó bezÿhonnost a je vè™nou hrozbou pro fyzickï a duþevnó zdravó obｸtó takovïho nèsiló; ÿｲinky takovïho nèsiló jsou ve Spoleｲenstvó natolik rozþóﾖeny, ™e pﾖedstavujó v̅znamnï nebezpeｲó pro zdravó.
`Physical, sexual and psychological violence against children, young persons and women consti-tutes a breach of their right to life, safety, freedom, dignity and physical and emotional integrity and a serious threat to the physical and mental health of the victims of such violence; the e.ectsof such violence are so widespread throughout the Community as to constitute a major health scourge.
Je dヮle™itï uvｸdomit si zèva™nï bezprostﾖednó a dlouhodobï dopady na zdravó, psychologic-k̅ a socièlnó rozvoj a rovnï pﾖóle™itosti dotyｲn̅ch osob, kterï nèsiló pﾖinèþó jednotlivcヮm, ro-dinèm a veﾖejnosti, a zèroveﾏ i to, jak vysokï socièlnó a ekonomickï nèklady znamenè pro spoleｲnost jako celek.
It is important to recognise the serious immediate and long-term implications for health, psycho-logical and social development, and for the equal opportunities of those concerned, that violence has for individuals, families and communities and the high social and economic costs to society as a whole.
Dle d e « n i c e S v ｸ t o v ï z d r a v o t n i c k ï o r g a n i z a c e j e z d r a v ó s t a v e m ÿ p l n ï f y z i c k ï , d u þ e v n ó a s o c i - è l n ó pohody, nikoli pouze nepﾖótomnostó nemoci ｲi vady.ƒ
According to the World Health Organisation's de«nition,healthisastateofcompletephysical,mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or in«rmity.'
Od roku 2000 se projekty zamｸﾖily na oblasti nèsiló, kterï v ｲlensk̅ch stètech EU (a ｲasto i mimo nó) pﾖeva™ujó, co™ bylo pﾖóle™itostó pro to uplatﾏovat v̅-sledky i jinde, zèroveﾏ se vþak stèle jednè o prioritnó ｲinnosti oblastó/zemó, ze kter̅ch pochèzejó implementujócó organizace.
In short, violence was seen as anything that impeded `complete physical, mental and social well-being' and a breach of the right to `life, safety, freedom, dignity and physical and emo-tional integrity'.
Tóm lze dobﾖe vysvｸtlit trvalou podporu DAPHNE ze strany organi-zacó pヮsobócóch na ÿrovni Spoleｲenstvó a pﾖedstavuje to i v̅znamn̅ krok k vytvoﾖenó spoleｲnï-ho pojótka mezi prioritami na ÿrovni Spoleｲenstvó a zèle™itostmi evropskïho v̅znamu.
This very broad approach to violence allowed Daphne projects to explore in detail the many faces of violence and the speci«cnational,regionalandlocalformsitpre-dominantly takes.
) Rozhodnutî Evropskêho parlamentu a Rady ┘. 293/2000/ES ze dne 24. ledna 2000, kterþm se p┼ijîmâ ak┘nî program Spole┘enstvî (program DAPHNE) (2000 a Š 2003) tþkajîcî se preventivnîch opat┼enî pro boj proti nâsilî na d┞tech, m l â d e Š i a Šenâch.
) Decision No 293/2000/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 January 2000 adopting a programme of Community action (the Daphne programme) (2000 to 2003) on preventive measures to #ghtviolence against children, young persons and women.
Po celou dobu trvènó programu DAPHNE byly proto podporovèny projekty, kterï se zab̅valy ochranou pﾖed nèsledujócómi obecn̅mi formami nèsiló a jejich prevencó:
Since 2000, projects have focused on areas of violence that are prevalent across the Member States of the EU (and often beyond) and therefore provide opportunities for transferring results, but that are also identi«edasbeingpriorityareasforactionintheprojectorganisations'ownlocalities/coun-tries.
‡ fyzickï napadenó
‡ physical assault,
‡ donucovènó a zneu™óvènó
‡ coercion and exploitation,
‡ psychologickï nèsiló
‡ psychological violence,
‡ nèsilnï kulturnó praktiky.
‡ violent cultural practices.
Podrobnｸjþó seznam jednotliv̅ch forem nèsiló, kterï byly v Evropｸ zjiþtｸny, a skupin mobilizo-van̅ch prostﾖednictvóm projektヮ DAPHNE k jejich potórènó lze nalïzt v pﾖóloze 1.
A more detailed list of the forms of violence i d e n t i « e d i n E u r op e , a n d t h e g r o up s m o b i l i s e d t h r o u g h Daphne projects to combat them, can be found in Annex 1.
Co si Evropanï mysló o nèsiló
What Europeans think about violence
Pomｸrnｸ brzy bylo jasnï, ™e projekty pﾖedklèdanï a/nebo « n a n c o v a n ï z D A P H N E d ob ﾖ e r e - ‹ e k t uj ó m n o h o t v è r n o s t n è s i l ó . Z è r o v e ﾏ v þ a k b y l o z ﾖ e j m ï , ™ ep r o v e d e n ó p r ヮ z k u m up r o s t ﾖ e d n i c - t v ó m Eurobarometru za ÿｲelem zjistit vóce o tom, jak Evropanï vnómajó nèsiló, by nejen doplni-lo projektovou ｲinnost, ale takï poslou™ilo jako zèklad snahy zjistit, jak se postupem ｲasu mｸnó vnómènó nèsiló.
Although it soon became clear that the multi-faceted nature of violence was well re‹ectedinprojects submitted to and/or funded by Daphne, it was also obvious that conducting a Euro-barometer exercise to seek more input on Europeans' perceptions of violence would not only complement project activity but also serve as a base for attempting to track some trends in perceptions of violence over time.
Strukturovanè povaha ÿdajヮ v rèmci studió Eurobarometru takï umo™ﾏuje vy-vodit nｸkterï obecnï zèvｸry o tom, jak by rヮznï zemｸ, vｸkovï ｲi socièlnｸ-ekonomickï skupi-ny mohly vnómat nèsiló a jak by na nｸj reagovaly.
The disaggregated nature of the data in Eurobarometer studies also allows for some general conclusions to be drawn about how di.erentcountries,age groups and socioeconomic groups might also perceive violence, and their responses to it.
V roce 1999 proto iniciativa DAPHNE spolupracovala se slu™bami Komise zab̅vajócómi se in-formacemi, komunikacó, kulturou a audiovizuèlnómi mïdii (oddｸlenó anal̅zy nèzorヮ veﾖejnos-ti) na v̅voji a zadènó prヮzkumu veﾖejnïho mónｸnó. Prヮzkum byl proveden prostﾖednictvóm Eurobarometru, a to hned ve dvou oblastech: (i) nèsiló vヮｲi dｸtem a (ii) domècó nèsiló na ™enèch.
In 1999, therefore, the Daphne initiative cooperated with the Commission services on infor-mation, communication, culture and audiovisual media (Public Opinion Analysis Unit) in de-veloping and commissioning a two-pronged Eurobarometer to gauge public opinion on (i) violence against children, and (ii) domestic violence against women.
Prヮzkum t̅kajócó se nèsiló na ™enèch se bohu™el omezil pouze na domècó nèsiló, co™ vedlo k tomu, ™e tak dヮle™itè tïmata jako napﾖóklad obchod s lidmi ｲi nèsiló mimo rodinu (napﾖ. in-stitucionèlnó) do prヮzkumu zahrnuta nebyla.
It was unfortunate that the survey on violence against women was limited to domestic violence only, since this meant that important subjects such as tra/ckingandextra-family(e.g.institutional)violencewerenot included.
Prヮzkum zab̅vajócó se nèsilóm na dｸtech zahrnoval fyzickï a psychologickï tresty, sexuèlnó zneu™óvènó, fyzickï a psychologickï t̅rènó, sna™il se vþak takï zjistit, zda-li Evropanï ve sku-teｲnosti pova™ujó vþechny tyto jevy za ¶nèsilóƒ a zda existujó rozdóly ve vnómènó tｸchto jevヮ mezi rヮzn̅mi vｸkov̅mi skupinami a zemｸmi. Dotazy se t̅kaly potencièlnóch pachatelヮ tｸchto fo-rem nèsiló, kter̅mi jsou: otec, matka, nevlastnó otec ｲi partner matky, nevlastnó matka ｲi part-nerka otce, bratr, sestra, ostatnó pﾖóbuznó, uｲitel, osoba na hlódènó dótｸte, jinï dótｸ, cizó osoba atd.
The survey on violence against children covered physical punishment, psychological punish-ment, sexual abuse, physical cruelty and psychological cruelty, although it also sought to «ndout whether Europeans did, in fact, consider all these to constitute `violence' and whether there were di.erencesinthisamongagegroupsandcountries.Itaskedquestionsaboutpo-tential perpetrators: father, mother, stepfather/mother's partner, stepmother/father's partner, brother, sister, other relative, teacher, child-minder, another child, stranger.
Prヮzkum se dotazoval i na to, jak se lidï o nèsiló pèchanïm na dｸtech dozvｸdｸli, co pova-™ujó za hlavnó pﾖóｲiny nèsiló na dｸtech, kdo by dle jejich nèzoru mｸl zasèhnout; co vｸdó o zèko-nech svï zemｸ a co by se dle jejich nèzoru mohlo udｸlat pro omezenó nèsiló na dｸtech.
It also looked at how people heard about violence against children, what they thought were the main causes of violence against children, who they thought should intervene, what they knew about laws in their country, and thoughts they had on what could be done to reduce violence against
nèsiló za urｲit̅ch okolnostó tolerovèno (tato otèzka byla v prヮzkumech t̅kajócóch se dｸtó zaｲle-nｸna do ostatnóch otèzek).
The Eurobarometer on domestic violence against women followed essentially the same pat-tern, although it did not seek to explore what Europeans thought constituted domestic vio-lence against women but rather how serious they thought «vedi.erenttypesofalready-de-«nedviolence(psychological,physicalandsexualviolence,threatsofviolenceandrestrictedfreedom) were.
Rovnｸ™ byla polo™ena otèzka s cólem zóskat pﾖehled o v̅skytu domècóho nèsiló.
There was an important question regarding the relationship between violence and `circumstances', in order to gauge whether violence was tolerated in certain circumstances (this question was subsumed into other questions in the children's survey).