natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Tato iniciativa Komise byla urｲena k tomu, aby z DAPHNE uｲinila program podporujócó anal̅zu a re‹exi,v̅mｸnuinformacóavytvèﾖenókon-taktヮ, a to nejen mezi jin̅mi agenturami, ale i za aktivnó ÿｲasti Komise.
This Commission initiative was designed s p e c i « c a l l y t o ` po s i t i o n ' D a p h n e a s a p r o g r a m mffe t h a t s up po r t e d a n a l y s i s a n d r e ‹ e c t i o n , i nfo r m a t i o n e x c h a n g e a n d n e t w o r k i n g nffo t o n l y b y o t h e r a g e n c i e s bu t w i t h t h e a c t i v e participation of the Commission.
Jeho prostﾖednictvóm dochèzelo k v̅mｸnｸ myþlenek mezi organizacemi realizujócómi projekty nebo tｸmi, kterï ji™ ukonｲily projektovou ｲinnosti, o zajómav̅ch projektech ｲi tﾖeba o seznamech novｸ vybran̅ch projektヮ.
It was used to share with organisations that were implementing projects or that had already completed project activity ideas about inter-esting projects as well as lists, for example, of newly selected projects.
Prostﾖednictvóm uveden̅ch seznamヮ se organizace dozvódaly napﾖ. o dalþóch orga-nizacóch pヮsobócóch ve stejnï oblasti v jin̅ch ｲlensk̅ch stètech.
Through this list, in particular, organisations were able to learn about other organisations working in the same area as them in other Member States.
Postupem ｲasu se mnohï z nich navzèjem kontaktovaly a navrhovaly si partnerstvó pro novï projekty DAPHNE › do takovï móry, ™e lidï v organizacóch a dokonce i v Komisi zaｲali hovoﾖit o ¶rodinｸ DAPHNEƒ.
Over time, many of the organisations contacted each other and proposed partnerships for new Daphne projects ̌ to the extent, in fact, that peo-ple within the organisations and indeed at the Commission began to talk about `the Daphne family'.
Tato partnerstvó v mnoha pﾖópadech pﾖetrvala i do doby po skonｲenó projektu DAPHNE, kter̅ stèl u jejich zrodu, a v nｸkter̅ch pﾖópadech pﾖerostla i do daleko u™þóch vztahヮ. Napﾖóklad projekt z roku 1998 realizovan̅ Rêddou Barnenem ve Þvïdsku (Save the Children Sweden), kter̅ si za partnera vybral malou nevlèdnó organizaci ve Þpanｸlsku, vedl ke vzniku organizace Save the Children Spain ve Þpanｸlsku.
These partnerships have in many cases continued long beyond the duration of the Daphne project that gave rise to them and in some cases have become structural.
Sestavovènó, psanó a distribuce bulletinu DAPHNE News bylo bohu™el velmi ｲasovｸ nèroｲnï pro tak mal̅ t̅m lidó ｲinn̅ch v rèmci iniciativy DAPHNE.
Unfortunately, the compilation, writing and distribution of Daphne News was time-consuming for the small team of people working on the Daphne initiative.
DAPHNE News proto pﾖestal po vydè-nó tﾖetóho roｲnóku v kvｸtnu 1999 existovat a nynó ho nahradila pravidelnｸ aktualizovanè we-bovè strènka. Jejó adresa je:
Daphne News ceased to exist after the third issue in May 1999 and is now replaced by a website, regularly updated. Its ad-dress is: h t tp : / / e u r op a . e u . i n t / cffo m m / ju s t i c e _ h o mffe / f u n d i n g / d a p h n e / f u n d i n g _ d a p h n e _ e n . h t m
Webovè strènka DAPHNE, kterè zaｲala existovat v prvnóm ｲtvrtletó roku 2000, nabózela navóc organizacóm zva™ujócóm podènó ™èdosti o «nancovènódobroupﾖóle™itostpﾖeｲóstsizèvｸreｲnïzprèvyvþechprojektヮdokonｲen̅ch v roce 1997 a dóky jednoduchïmu vyhledèvènó podle klóｲov̅ch slov vｸnovat konkrïtnó pozor-nost pracóm, je™ se zab̅valy stejnou problematikou.
«rstquarterof2000,gaveorganisationsconsideringapplyingforfundingtheopportunitytoread through the «nalreportsofallprojectscompletedin1997and,throughasimplekey-word search, to pay particular attention to work that had been done in the area in which they were considering submitting a project.
Vｸtþina projektヮ pﾖedlo™en̅ch pro rok 1998 prohlaþovala, ™e navrhuje danou ｲinnost ¶jako vヮbec prvnóƒ. Pasto vþak takovï ｲinnosti v Evropｸ ji™ probóhaly nebo byly dokonce «nancovè-ny samotnou iniciativou DAPHNE.
It had been noted, when project submissions for 1998 were read, that many of the projects claimed to be suggesting activities that would be attempted `for the «rsttimeever'when,infact, such activities had already been undertaken in Europe or indeed even funded by the Daphne initiative itself.
V̅zva k pﾖedklèdènó nèvrhヮ v roce 1999 proto zdヮraznila, ™e je tﾖeba, aby se organizace pﾖi pﾖópravｸ projektヮ informovaly o ｲinnostech, kterï ji™ byly realizovèny, a, bude-li to mo™nï, dèle na nich stavｸly nebo je adaptovaly buｵ pro þirþó vyu™itó v EU nebo pro vyu™itó v jin̅ch souvislostech. Tato v̅zva radｸji ¶stavｸtƒ ne™ ¶podruhï vynalï-zat co ji™ bylo vynalezenoƒ se od roku 1999 ka™doroｲnｸ opakovala, aｲkoliv velk̅ poｲet pﾖed-lo™en̅ch projektヮ nadèle navrhoval ｲinnosti, kterï nerespektovaly ji™ dosa™enï v̅sledky.
The call for proposals in 1999 therefore emphasised the need for or-ganisations preparing projects to inform themselves of actions that had already been imple-mented and, where possible, to build on these or adapt them either for broader EU coverage or for application in di.erentcircumstances.Thisencouragementto`build'ratherthan`rein-vent' was in fact repeated each year from 1999, although a large number of project submis-sions continued to suggest actions that did not take account of previous experience.
V roce 1999 se zaｲala objevovat i ﾖada nov̅ch otèzek.
In 1999, a number of new issues also began to emerge, however.
Dヮraz na zv̅þenó povｸdomó o nèsiló vヮｲi ™enèm v Evropｸ v roce 1999 napﾖóklad podnótil vznik vｸtþóho poｲtu projektヮ, kterï mｸly za cól zv̅þit povｸdomó o problïmu a zab̅valy se genderov̅m nèsilóm obecnｸ, zvlèþtｸ pak otèzkou domècóho nèsiló.
In particular, the focus on raising awareness of violence against women in Europe in 1999 prompted an increase in awareness-raising projects on gendered violence in general and on domestic violence in par-ticular.
Zv̅þenè pozornost veﾖejnosti a politick̅ch kruhヮ vヮｲi migraci do Evropy a obava, ™e nepochopenó tohoto fenomïnu povede k rostoucó diskriminaci a zneu™óvènó pﾖi-stｸhovalcヮ ™ijócóch a pracujócóch v Evropｸ, podnótily vznik ﾖady projektヮ zamｸﾖen̅ch na prèva pﾖistｸhovalcヮ a na podporu obｸtó rasismu a diskriminace.
Increasing public and political attention to the issue of migration into Europe, and concern that misunderstanding of this issue was giving rise to increasing discrimination and abuse of migrant people living and working in Europe, prompted a number of projects focus-ing on the rights of migrants and on support to victims of racism and discrimination.
Projekty zab̅vajócó se tajnou migracó nezletil̅ch osob bez doprovodu, prèvy migrujócóch do-mècóch pracovnókヮ, podporou obｸtó obchodovènó s lidmi a prevencó vykoﾖisﾝovènó migrujócóch ™en, kterï se staly pﾖedmｸtem obchodu s lidmi, pﾖedchèzely rostoucómu poｲtu projektヮ, kte-rï v nèsledujócóch letech odrè™ely novou dヮle™itou sfïru pヮsobnosti nevlèdnóch organizacó a orgènヮ veﾖejnï moci v Evropｸ.
Projects on the clandestine migration of unaccompanied minors, on the rights of migrant domestic workers, on support to victims of tra/ckingandtopreventexploitationofmigrantand tra/ckedwomen,wereforerunnersofa growingnumberofprojectsthat,inthefollow-ing years, r e ‹ e c t e d a n i m po r t a n t n e w w o r k l o a d f o r N G O s a n d p u b l i c a uijt h o r i t i e s i n E u r op e .
Dヮle™itï problïmy jako je znèsilnｸnó, mrzaｲenó ™ensk̅ch pohlavnóch orgènヮ a nèsiló v dヮsledku k o n ‹ i k t u b y l y r o v n ｸ ™ p o p r v ï z a ｲ l e n ｸ n y m e z ip r o j e k t y « n a n c o v a n ï i n i c i a t i v o u D A P H N E .
I m po r t a n t issues such as rape, female genital mutilation (FGM) and violence in the aftermath of cffo n ‹ i c t a l s o « g u r e d f o r t h e « r s t t i mffe a m o n g D a p h n e - f u n d e d p r o j e c t s .
Zatómco projekty DAPHNE pokraｲovaly a dobﾖe odrè™ely povahu debaty a potﾖeb souvisejócóch s nèsilóm v Evropｸ, nｸkterï problïmy zmiﾏovanï od samïho poｲètku existence iniciativy pﾖe-trvèvaly.
While Daphne projects continued, therefore, to re‹ectwellthenatureofdebateandneedsrelated to violence in Europe, some problems noted from the very beginning of the initiative persisted.
Vｸtþinou se t̅kaly nèvrhu a ﾖózenó projektu a trvalï potﾖeby zlepþit kapacitu organi-zacó. Pro Komisi to znamenalo pokraｲovat v monitorovènó a poskytovènó technickï pomoci projektヮm a pro samotn̅ t̅m DAPHNE nutnost pokraｲovat v prèci v oblasti zóskèvènó zkuþe-nostó, anal̅zy trendヮ a rozvójenó iniciativy DAPHNE ve svｸtle tｸchto poznatkヮ.
These related mostly to project design and management, and suggested a contin-ued need for improvements in the capacity of organisations, for the Commission to continue to monitor and provide technical advice to projects, and for ongoing work in the Daphne `team' itself to draw lessons, analyse trends and develop the initiative in the light of this re‹ec-tion.
V souvislosti s pﾖópravou projektヮ a plènovènóm se stèle objevovaly nedostatky:
In regard to project preparation and planning, there were still weaknesses in:
‡ v zamｸﾖenó na pﾖóｲinu a dヮsledek, tj. pﾖi v̅bｸru takov̅ch ｲinnostó, kterï by byly pﾖimｸﾖenï problïmヮm, kterï majó vyﾖeþit;
‡ focusing on cause and e.ectandmatchingactionstotheproblemstheyaimedtosolve;
‡ v zóskèvènó vｸdomostó; je tﾖeba vｸdｸt, jak tyto vｸdomosti sdólet s pﾖósluþn̅mi skupinami, a pﾖedevþóm, jak je pﾖimｸﾖenou formou þóﾖit a dosèhnout pﾖidanï hodnoty v ostatnóch ｲlen-sk̅ch stètech;
‡ learning lessons and knowing how to share these with appropriate groups, and in particu-lar spreading these in appropriate form and with added value in other Member States;
‡ ve vyu™óvènó partnerstvó pro lepþó pokrytó a efektivitu;
‡ using partnerships to improve coverage and e/ciency;
‡ ve vyu™itó rozpoｲtu k snazþó implementaci a snazþómu dosa™enó v̅sledkヮ (efektivnｸjþó ne™ prostè kalkulace nèkladヮ);
‡ using the budget to facilitate implementation and output, rather than as a simple `costing' exercise;
‡ vyhodnocovènó v̅sledkヮ a dosa™en̅ch v̅konヮ.
‡ evaluating results and performance.
Velk̅ poｲet projektヮ, zdè se, nerealizoval potencièl, kter̅ by bylo mo™nï vytｸ™it z partnerヮ v jin̅ch ｲlensk̅ch stètech, a to nejen v souvislosti s þirþóm pokrytóm, ale i kvヮli lepþómu porozumｸnó, anal̅ze a podpoﾖe.
Aims and priorities the potential that having partners in other Member States o.erednotonlyforbroadcoveragebut for improved understanding and analysis, and for support.
Vezmeme-li to z tï pozitivnｸjþó strènky, vybranï projekty nadèle pﾖipravovaly rヮzn̅mi zpヮso-by pヮdu pro dalþó v̅voj:
On a more positive note, the projects selected continued to break new ground in a number of ways:
‡ zab̅valy se problïmy, jejich™ ﾖeþenóm se dosud nikdo nezab̅val;
‡ they tackled subjects not hitherto attempted;
‡ v̅sledek mnoh̅ch projektヮ byl velmi kvalitnó a pou™iteln̅ v celï ﾖadｸ ｲlensk̅ch stètヮ, nｸ-kdy vþech;
‡ the output of many projects was of a high standard and usable in several Member States, sometimes all;
‡ v̅zkumem, studiemi a shroma™ｵovènóm ÿdajヮ, je™ ｲasto doprovèzely srovnèvacó anal̅zy napﾖóｲ EU, byly zóskèny novï poznatky o podstatｸ problïmヮ;
‡ new insights were gained through research, studies and data collection, and in particular this often included comparative analysis across the EU;
‡ podpora Komise otevﾖela dveﾖe mnoha organizacóm a zv̅þila jejich schopnost fungovat jak ve vlastnóm prostﾖedó, tak na evropskï (a v nｸkter̅ch pﾖópadech mezinèrodnó) ÿrovni.
‡ the support of the Commission opened doors for many organisations and enhanced their ability to function within their own environment and at European (and in some cases in-ternational) level.
¶Koordinètoﾖi projektu soudó, ™e hlaviｲka ¶Evropskè komiseƒ v̅znamnou mｸrou pﾖidala jejich ｲinnostem na dヮvｸryhodnosti... ｲlenovï t̅mu zaznamenali okam™itou zmｸnu pﾖóstupu þkol-sk̅ch ÿﾖadヮ.ƒ [externó hodnocenó projektu 97/066/WC]
`Project coordinators judge that the label ``European Commission'' was decisive to add credibil-ity to their action „team members noticed an immediate change of attitude in school au-thorities.' [External evaluation of Project 97/066/WC]
V dobｸ, kdy byl v roce 2000 spuþtｸn program DAPHNE 2000›2003, vyplynulo z tﾖóletï zkuþe-nosti iniciativy DAPHNE nesmórnï mno™stvó novï prèce a o podólu Komise v rèmci tïto ｲinnos-ti se pravidelnｸ hovoﾖilo v mezinèrodnóch kruzóch.
By the time the Daphne programme 2000›03 was launched in 2000, an enormous amount of new work had emerged from the three-year experience of the Daphne initiative, and the Com-mission's commitment to this work was regularly talked about in international circles.
Podpora nevlèdnóch organizacó byla spolehlivè a poznatky zóskanï v rèmci projektヮ DAPHNE si naþly cestu na konference a seminèﾖe v jin̅ch regionech.
NGO support was solid and lessons from Daphne projects found their way into conferences and workshops in other regions as lead and partner organisations `spread the word'.
Informace þóﾖily i partnerskï orga-nizace. V̅bor OSN pro prèva dótｸte, kter̅ obdr™el informace o DAPHNE v roce 1999, uvèdｸl DAPHNE v nèslednï zprèvｸ pro Svｸtov̅ kongres proti komerｲnómu sexuèlnómu zneu™óvènó dｸtó jako pﾖóklad sprèvnï regionèlnó praxe. ¶Duchƒ DAPHNE, charakterizovan̅ jako:
The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child received a b r i e « n g o n D a p h n e i n 1 9 9 9 ; t h e f o l l o w - up r e po r t to the World Congress against Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children listed Daphne as an example of good regional practice. The `spirit' of Daphne, characterised as:
‡ podstupovènó pﾖimｸﾖen̅ch rizik pﾖi pﾖópravｸ pヮdy pro nov̅ v̅voj;
‡ taking calculated risks to break new ground,
‡ snaha o posólenó ochrann̅ch struktur, skupin a jednotlivcヮ;
‡ seeking to empower protection structures, groups and individuals,
‡ ﾖeþenó problïmu nèsiló komplexnóm zpヮsobem, z hlediska prevence, ochrany, podpory, nèpravy i v kontextu zèkladnóch informacó o skuteｲnostech v Evropｸ i jednotliv̅ch stè-tech, byl uvèdｸn jako dヮvod pro pokraｲujócó podporu nevlèdnóch organizacó, orgènヮ veﾖejnï moci a dalþóch subjektヮ.
‡ tackling violence comprehensively from the angles of prevention, protection, support, re-habilitation and in the context of grassroots-level information about European and na-tional realities, was cited as a reason for the continued support of NGOs, public authorities and other players.
Podól Komise na realizaci projektヮ byl oznaｲovèn jako vzècn̅ pﾖóklad pod-pory, kter̅ pﾖesèhl pouhï «nancovènóapﾖeþelkaktivnómuzapojenósedohry.
The Commission's close engagement with the projects was hailed as a rare example of sup-port that went beyond funding to real commitment.
Pﾖechod na program DAPHNE 2000›2003
Transition to the Daphne programme 2000›03
Program DAPHNE sledoval obecnou linii iniciativy DAPHNE, avþak se tﾖemi dヮle™it̅mi inova-cemi: mo™nost podat ™èdost o « n a n c o v è n ó m ｸ l y t a k ï o r g a n i z a c e z e z e m ó E S V O / E H P a s t ﾖ e d n ó a v̅chodnó Evropy, z Kypru, Malty a Turecka; program se otevﾖel móstnóm orgènヮm i jako™to vedoucóm projektヮ, nikoli pouze jako partnerヮm; provozovat projekty bylo mo™nï a™ po dobu tﾖó let.
The Daphne programme followed the general lines of the initiative, with three important in-novations: the ability for organisations from EFTA/EEA countries, central and east European countries, and Cyprus, Malta and Turkey to apply; the opening of the programme to local au-thorities as project leaders, not just partners; and the possibility of projects running for up to three years.
Tyto inovace vþak zpヮsobily urｲitï komplikace.
This led to some complications.
Prvnó komplikacó bylo, ™e zahrnutó neｲlensk̅ch zemó zèviselo na rèmcov̅ch dohodèch uzavﾖen̅ch mezi EU a tｸmito zemｸmi. Mezi EU a kandidètsk̅mi stèty vþak doposud ™èdnè dohoda nebyla «-nalizovèna.
The « r s t w a s t h a t t h e i n c l u s i o nffo f t h e nffo n - mffe m b e r S t a t e cffo u n t r i e s d e p e n d e d o n f r a mffe w o r k a g r e e mffe n t s being in place between the EU and these States, and no agreement had as yet been « n a l i s e d b e t w e e n t h e E U a n d a p p l i c a n t S t a t e s .
To zpヮsobilo jist̅ zmatek mezi pﾖedkladateli projektヮ, neboﾝ mnoho projektヮ mｸlo plnohodnotnï partnery v kandidètsk̅ch zemóch (nｸkdy jasn̅ programov̅ imperativ, zejmïna u projektヮ zab̅vajócóch se pﾖeshraniｲnómi zèle™itostmi jako je obchodovènó s lidmi a migrace) a bylo nutnï ™èdat o revizi jejich projektヮ, pokud mｸly b̅t doporuｲeny pro «nancovènó.
T h i s c a u s e d s o mffe cffo n f u s i o n a m o n g s t t h o s e submitting projects, since many projects went ahead and included full partners in the applicant States ̌ sometimes a clear programming imperative, especially in projects dealing with cross-border issues like tra/ckingandmigratioň andhadtobeaskedtorevisetheirprojects if they were to be recommended for funding.
Nutnost, aby v̅bｸrovè komise navrhla mo™nost revize takov̅ch projektヮ, ani™ by to negativ-nｸ ovlivnilo jejich v̅sledky (aby pﾖósluþnï informace mohly b̅t pﾖedèny organizacóm spoleｲ-nｸ s dalþómi pokyny, kterï jim mｸly pomoci dosèhnout ÿspｸchu v rèmci v̅bｸrovïho ﾖózenó) pﾖedstavovalo precedens pro v̅bｸrovou komisi podólet se na nèvrzóch zlepþenó «nancovan̅chprojektヮ hned na zaｲètku celïho procesu.
The need for the selection panel to suggest how such projects might be revised without det-riment to the outcomes (in order to provide suggestions to the organisations in the letter advising them of the successful outcome of their application) set a precedent for the selection panel to become more involved in suggesting improvements to funded projects right at the beginning of the process.
Z dneþnóho hlediska to bylo pﾖónosnï, neboﾝ v̅bｸ-rovè komise sestèvala v tï dobｸ z odbornókヮ na metodiku, v̅zkum a sbｸr dat, zdravó, vymè-hènó prèva, programy t̅kajócó se lidsk̅ch prèv, þóﾖenó poznatkヮ, komunikaci a dalþó oblasti socièlnóho programovènó.
In hindsight, this was a positive advance, since the selection panel included, at various times, experts in methodology, research and data collection, health issues, law enforcement, rights-based programming, dissemination and communication, and other areas of social programming.
Ani™ by tóm byl zèva™n̅m zpヮsobem dotｲen nèvrh projektヮ, moh-li tito experti upozornit koordinètora programu DAPHNE na detaily, na nｸ™ by bylo dobrï upozornit implementujócó organizaci, navrhnout þkrty v rèmci projektu, u nｸho™ by dochèze-lo k pﾖekroｲenó kapacity, nebo naopak navrhnout drobnï zmｸny v projektovï ｲinnosti, kterï by zv̅þily dopad ｲi pokrytó projektu.
Without materially a.ectingthedesignoftheprojects,theex-perts were able to alert the Daphne programme coordinator to details that might need to be brought to the attention of the implementing organisation, or to suggest cuts in a project that seemed to be over-reaching capacity or, conversely, minor additions to project activity that would increase its impact or coverage.
Druhè inovace, v̅zva móstnóm orgènヮm, aby se staly vedoucómi projektヮ, probｸhla bez kom-plikacó a nezpヮsobila ™èdnï novï problïmy, aｲkoli v praxi móstnó orgèny v roli vedoucóch pro-jektヮ, nikoli jen jako partneﾖi, postupovaly pomｸrnｸ pomalu.
The second innovation, the opening-up of the call to local authorities as project leaders, was straightforward and gave rise to no new challenges, although in practice local authorities were slow to come forward as project leaders rather than partners.
Tﾖetó zmｸna, zahrnutó vócelet̅ch projektヮ, nepﾖóznivｸ ovlivnila ﾖózenó celkovïho rozpoｲtu DAPHNE a nepﾖómo takï spektrum «nancovan̅chprojektヮ.Vprvnómroceprogramumuselyb̅t «nanｲnóprostﾖedkyproprojektydelþóne™12mｸsócヮpﾖidｸlovènyzrozpoｲtunadan̅jedenrok.
The third change, however, the inclusion of multiannual projects, a.ectedthemanagementof the overall Daphne budget and, indirectly, the selection of projects signi«cantly.Inthe«rstyear of the Daphne programme, the funds for projects of more than 12 months' duration had to be allocated out of that single year's budget.
Tóm se mohl zèsadnｸ snó™it poｲet projektヮ «nancovan̅chvdanïmroce,proto™ejedentﾖólet̅ projekt by napﾖóklad spotﾖeboval «nanｲnóprostﾖedkyprotﾖijednoletïprojekty.Hrozi-lo, ™e tato skuteｲnost ™adatele odradó.
This could have seriously reduced the number of projects funded that year as, for example, one three-year project would take up the fund-ing for three one-year projects. This would risk discouraging applicants.
V dヮsledku toho bylo rozhodnuto omezit poｲet vócele-t̅ch projektヮ, aby nebyli pﾖóliþ znev̅hodnｸni ti, kdo mｸli pocit, ™e jim jejich kapacita nedovo-luje ﾖódit vóceletï projekty (napﾖóklad proto™e jim velikost organizace nedovolovala kr̅t v̅da-je v pﾖópadｸ opo™dｸnï refundace z vlastnóch prostﾖedkヮ po vóce ne™ jeden rok).
As a result, it was decided to limit the number of multiannual projects in order not to seriously disadvantage those who felt that their capacity did not allow them to manage multiannual projects (for example, because the size of the organisation did not allow it to bear the burden of expend-iture against delayed reimbursement for more than one year at a time).
Program DAPHNE byl stejnｸ jako iniciativa DAPHNE zahrnovèn obrovsk̅m poｲtem ™èdostó.
The Daphne programme was as over-subscribed as the initiative had been.
V prvnóm roce bylo podèno 415 nèvrhヮ v celkovï v̅þi 40 milionヮ EUR, pﾖiｲem™ podanï nèvrhy pokr̅valy prakticky vþechny ｲinnosti doporuｲenï v rèmci pokynヮ pro ™adatele. Jednalo se o:
In the «rstyear,415 submissions were received, totalling some EUR 40 million.
‡ vytvoﾖenó spoleｲn̅ch rèmcヮ pro ﾖeþenó otèzky nèsiló;
All of the activities recom-mended in the guidelines for applicants were covered in the project submissions, namely:
‡ mｸﾖenó rヮznïho dopadu rヮzn̅ch typヮ nèsiló s cólem pﾖipravit pﾖósluþnou odezvu;
‡ production of common frameworks for violence;
‡ vyhodnocenó opatﾖenó a postupヮ pro prevenci a identi«kacinèsilóscólemzabrènitpﾖópadnïdalþó nutnosti ｲelit nèsiló;
‡ measurement of the impact of di.erenttypesofviolencetoestablishappropriatere-sponse;
‡ informaｲnó kampanｸ pro zv̅þenó povｸdomó veﾖejnosti, mïdió a/nebo cólen̅ch odborn̅ch skupin;
‡ assessment of measures and practices to prevent and detect violence in order to prevent future exposure to violence;
‡ tvorba informaｲnóch zdrojヮ v rèmci celïho Spoleｲenstvó pro rヮznï oblasti nèsiló;
‡ information campaigns to raise awareness in the public, media and/or targeted profes-sional groups;
‡ studie rヮzn̅ch aspektヮ nèsiló a snaha zodpovｸdｸt otèzku, jak jim zabrènit;
‡ studies of di.erentaspectsofviolenceandhowtopreventthem;
‡ nalezenó zpヮsobヮ, jak lïpe rozpoznat dヮsledky nèsiló, upozornit na nｸ a zvlèdnout je.
‡ identi«cationofwaystoimproverecognition,reportingandmanagementoftheconse-quences of violence.
Projekty pokr̅valy domècó nèsiló, sexuèlnó nèsiló vｲetnｸ incestu, genderovï nèsiló, nèsiló ve þkolèch, psychologickï nèsiló, zdravotnó dopady nèsiló vｲetnｸ MRZAPENÓ ç E N S K ä C H POHLAV-NÓCH ORGÈN｢, vymèhènó prèva a dｸtskou pornogra«inainternetu.Jednotlivïkategoriejsoupodrobnｸji popsèny v pﾖóloze.
Projects covered domestic violence, sexual violence including incest, gendered violence, vio-lence in schools, psychological violence, the health impacts of violence including female genital mutilation, law enforcement and child pornography online. They are categorised in more detail in the annex.
¶Co se t̅ｲe oblastó ｲinnosti: sexuèlnó nèsiló ve vþech sv̅ch formèch je jasnｸ na prvnóm móstｸ (sexuèlnó nèsiló 17 %, komerｲnó sexuèlnó vykoﾖisﾝovènó 8 %, obchodovènó s lidmi 7 %).
`Concerning the areas of activity: clearly sexual violence in all its forms comes top (sexual vio-lence 17 %, commercial sexual exploitation 8 %, tra/cking7 %).Thenexttopicintermsofim-portance is the gender-/family-related violence (gender violence 8 %, violence in the family 7 % and violence in domestic context 11 %).
Dalþóm tïmatem z hlediska dヮle™itosti je genderovï nèsiló a nèsiló v rodinｸ (genderovï nèsiló 8 %, nèsiló v rodinｸ 7 % a domècó nèsiló 11 %).
Internet and child pornography are also signi«cant,with6 % of the total.'
Internet a dｸtskè pornogra«ehrajórovnｸ™v̅znamnouroli s celkem 6 %.ƒ
Commission report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the Daphne programme 2000›03, January 2002
Zprèva Komise Evropskïmu parlamentu a Radｸ o programu DAPHNE 2000›2003, leden 2002 tada podan̅ch nèvrhヮ byla opｸt neÿspｸþnè z dヮvodu svïho pﾖóliþ móstnóho zamｸﾖenó, nesna-™ila se vyu™ót potencièlu ¶evropskostiƒ.
Submissions continued to fail because they were local and did not attempt to explore the potential of `European-ness'.