natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Respondenti mｸli odpovｸdｸt, zda-li sami znajó nｸkoho, kdo byl obｸtó nebo pachatelem domècóho nèsiló a kde takovou osobu poznali (v prèci, ve vlastnó rodinｸ, mezi pﾖèteli atd.).
There was also a question that aimed to give some idea of the prevalence of domestic violence by asking respondents whether they themselves knew of someone who had been a victim or perpetra-tor of domestic violence, and where they knew this person (at work, in own family, among friends, etc.).
Uvèdóme nｸkolik zajómav̅ch informacó, zóskan̅ch na zèkladｸ tｸchto dvou prヮzkumヮ:
Some interesting insights were gained through the two surveys.
‡ Vｸtþina Evropanヮ se domnóvala, ™e nèsiló na dｸtech je ¶velmi bｸ™nïƒ nebo ¶dosti bｸ™nïƒ (celkem 77 %), a pouze 1 % jich nikdy o nèsiló na dｸtech neslyþelo.
‡ Most Europeans thought that violence against children was `very common' or `fairly com-mon' (77 % total) and only 1 % had never heard of violence against children.
‡ Vｸtþina Evropanヮ, i kdy™ tentokrèt ji™ o nｸco mïnｸ, se domnóvala, ™e domècó nèsiló na ™enèch je ¶velmi bｸ™nïƒ nebo ¶dosti bｸ™nïƒ (celkem 74 %), ale 4 % o nｸm nikdy neslyþela.
‡ A majority of Europeans, although slightly fewer, thought that domestic violence against women was `very common' or `fairly common' (74 % total) but 4 % had never heard of it.
‡ V obou pﾖópadech zaujómalo sexuèlnó nèsiló hornó pﾖóｲky na ™ebﾖóｲku zèva™nosti rヮzn̅ch forem nèsiló: vóce ne™ 97 % respondentヮ pova™ovalo sexuèlnó zneu™óvènó dｸtó za formu nè-siló a 90 % Evropanヮ pova™ovalo sexuèlnó nèsiló na ™enèch za ¶velmi vè™nïƒ.
‡ In both cases, sexual violence topped the list of what was considered serious: more than 97 % of respondents considered sexual abuse of children to be a form of violence, and 90 % of Europeans considered sexual violence against women to be `very serious'.
‡ V prヮzkumu vyþel najevo zèva™n̅ omyl v pﾖedstavèch o pachatelóch nèsiló na dｸtech: Evro-panï byli chybnｸ pﾖesvｸdｲeni o tom, ™e se nèsiló na dｸtech s nejvｸtþó pravdｸpodobnostó dopouþtｸjó cizó osoby (74 %), aｲkoli se ve skuteｲnosti vｸtþinou odehrèvè v rodinｸ nebo k nｸmu dochèzó ze strany pﾖètel nebo lidó, kterï dótｸ znè.
‡ There was a serious misconception about perpetrators of violence against children: Euro-peans mistakenly believed that it is strangers who are most likely to in‹ictviolenceonchildren (74 %) although in fact most violence is in‹ictedonchildrenbyfamily,friendsorpeople they know.
‡ Evropanï se domnóvajó, ™e fyzickï nebo psychologickï nèsiló, jeho™ se na dｸtech dopouþ-tｸjó uｲitelï, je formou nèsiló (75 %) a 59 % z nich pova™uje fyzickï tresty ze strany rodiｲヮ za akt nèsiló.
‡ Europeans consider that physical or psychological violence in‹ictedonchildrenbyteach-ers is a form of violence (75 %), and 59 % regard physical punishment by parents as an act of violence.
‡ Evropanï vþeobecnｸ vｸﾖó, ™e fyzickï ｲi psychologickï t̅rènó pèchanï ostatnómi dｸtmi je rovnｸ™ formou nèsiló (88 % a 85 %), aｲkoliv je zajómavï, ™e se zde odpovｸdi silnｸ liþó v zèvis-losti na vｸku respondentヮ; nèsiló mezi sobｸ rovn̅mi pﾖijómajó spóþe mladó lidï ne™ lidï star-þó.
‡ Europeans in general believe that physical or psychological cruelty in‹ictedbyotherchil-dren is also a form of violence (88 % and 85 % respectively), although interestingly this response is highly disaggregated by age, with young people being more accepting of peer violence than older people.
¶Mladó lidï pova™ujó nèsiló za normèlnó a zvykli si na nｸj i na hodnoty s nóm spojenï. Nèsiló je pﾖótomno opakovanｸ, dennｸ, univerzèlnｸ.
`Young people have normalised and grown accustomed to violence and the values associated with it.
Pova™uje se za nevyhnutelnï a obecnｸ ﾖeｲeno si ne-jsme vｸdomi problïmヮ, kterï vyvolèvè.
It is assumed to be in-evitable and, generally speaking, we are not aware of the problems it causes.
Ze skupinovï anal̅zy lze vyvodit urｲitï schvalovènó a spoleｲenskou pﾖijatelnost a nezdè se, ™e by byli lidï dobﾖe informovèni o negativnóch dヮsled-cóch nèsiln̅ch ｲinヮ, aｲkoliv je oznaｲujó za problematickï „ Nèsiló slou™ó jako mechanismus di-alogu mezi sobｸ rovn̅mi.
From the groups' analysis, a certain permissiveness and social acceptance is inferred and they do not seem to be very informed about the negative consequences of acts of violence, although they are identi«edas problematic„ Violence serves as a mechanism for dialogue between equals.
Adolescenti si vytvèﾖó svヮj vlastnó kùd s odliþn̅m jazykem, slang, kte-r̅ je souｲèstó zkouþek dospｸlosti, tｸch forem chovènó a pﾖóstupヮ, kterï je uvèdｸjó do svｸta dospｸ-l̅ch.
Adolescents form their own code with a di.erentlanguage,aslangthatispartoftheritesofpassage,offorms of behaviour and attitudes that lead them to the adult stage.
Nèsiló se tak stèvè iracionèlnóm procesem, kter̅ vytvèﾖó identitu na zèkladｸ vzèjemnïho uznèvènó ｲlenヮ skupiny.ƒ [projekt 99/055/C]
Violence thus becomes an irrational process that builds identity by operating within a circle of recognition between the members of the group.' [Project 99/055/C]
‡ Evropanï pova™ujó za tｸ™ko pﾖedstavitelnï, ™e by se dｸti mohly nèsilnｸ chovat vヮｲi sv̅m sourozencヮm, ale uznèvajó, ™e k nèsiló ze strany ¶jinïho dótｸteƒ dochèzó ｲasto.
‡ Europeans «nditdi/cultto imaginethatchildrenmightbe violenttowardstheirsiblings,but recognise violence by `another child' as frequently occurring.
‡ Zde je mo™nï navèzat na odpovｸdi, ze kter̅ch vyplynulo, ™e tïmｸﾖ polovina vþech Evro-panヮ se domnóvè, ™e nèsiló na dｸtech mヮ™e souviset s chovènóm dótｸte samotnïho (45 %) a ™e ¶provokativnó chovènóƒ ™en mヮ™e mót za nèsledek domècó nèsiló vヮｲi nim (46 %).
‡ This may be linked to the responses which indicated that almost half of all Europeans think that violence against children may be related to the behaviour of the child her/himself (45 %), and that the `provocative behaviour' of women is also a cause of domestic violence against them (46 %).
¶V Irsku projektov̅ t̅m narazil formou tzv. zpｸtnï reakce na problïm.
`An issue that arose for the project team was that of the ``backlash'' in Ireland.
V tïto zemi je toti™ zkou-mènó nèsiló v rodinｸ a v ™ivotｸ mlad̅ch lidó pﾖijómèno nepﾖètelsky.
A hostile environ-ment exists within Irish society to explore violence within the home and in young peoples' lives.
V souｲasnosti zde navóc pヮ-sobó nｸkolik skupin mu™ヮ, kterï se organizujó a sna™ó zhatit prèci mnoha skupin, kterï se v Irsku zab̅vajó nèsilóm.
At present there is a group of men's groups who organise together to destruct the work of many groups in Ireland who work in the area of violence.
V rèmci svï ｲinnosti se rovnｸ™ sna™ó ÿtoｲit na svobodnou volbu ™en.
Their agenda also attacks women's freedom of choice.
Sdｸlovacó prostﾖedky dèvajó tïto skupinｸ ÿtoｲócó i na ™enskï skupiny a jejó pﾖóznivce znaｲn̅ prostor, pﾖiｲem™ doþlo u™ i k napadenó vlèdy tóm, ™e na ni byla podèna soudnó ™aloba v souvislosti s programem, kter̅ vlèda zavedla ve þkolèch pro chlapce a kter̅ se naz̅vè ¶Objevovènó mu™nostiƒ. V takovïm prostﾖedó projekt probóhal.ƒ [projekt 99/044/WC]
The media gives considerable coverage to this group who, as well as attacking wom-en's groups and their supporters, have also challenged the government by taking a court case against them in relation to the one programme that the government has introduced in schools for boys called `'Exploring masculinities''. The project operated within this environment.'
‡ Respondenti vyjèdﾖili silnï pﾖesvｸdｲenó, ™e pachatelï nèsiló na dｸtech a domècóho nèsiló na ™enèch by mｸli b̅t potrestèni (94 % a 95 %), ale jejich povｸdomó o platn̅ch zèkonech bylo malï.
‡ There were strong feelings that perpetrators of violence against children and domestic violence against women should be punished (94 % and 95 %) but little knowledge of exist-ing laws.
‡ Vｸtþina Evropanヮ vｸﾖó, ™e by zèkony mｸly b̅t mnohem pﾖósnｸji prosazovèny (91 % v obou prヮzkumech), a byla zjiþtｸna silnè podpora pro to, aby se samotnè EU zapojila do boje s nèsilóm na dｸtech (72 % ¶rozhodnｸ anoƒ) a na ™enèch (67 %).
‡ The majority of Europeans believed that laws should be more stringently enforced (91 % in both surveys) and there was strong support for the notion that the EU itself should be involved in combating violence against children (72 % `de«nitely')andagainstwomen(67 %).
Z prヮzkumu Eurobarometru vyplynulo, ™e móra povｸdomó o nèsiló v Evropｸ je vysokè a ™e vnó-mènó nèsiló jako socièlnóho jevu je nepﾖijatelnï.
What was clear from the Eurobarometer is that there is a high level of general awareness about violence in Europe and a strong feeling that it is a social phenomenon that is not acceptable.
Byl rovnｸ™ potvrzen nèzor, ™e nèsiló mè mnoho tvèﾖó, kterï mè rヮznï formy a rヮznï spouþtｸcó mechanismy, a ™e i pachatelï nèsiln̅ch ｲinヮ jsou rozdólnó.
There was also endorsement of the notion that violence is a multi-faceted phenomenon that has di.erentformsandtriggers,andthattheperpetratorsofviolencearealsodiverse.
Znepokojujócómi jsou vþak nèznaky toho, ™e ｲóm mladþó Evropanï jsou, tóm vóce nèsiló tolerujó, co™ poukazuje na mo™nï zvyþovènó tolerance vヮｲi nèsiló, kterï se tak mヮ™e stèt ¶normèlnómƒ jevem.
There were also worrying signs, however, that the younger the European, the higher the lev-el of violence tolerated, suggesting that tolerance of violence may be increasing and that it may be becoming `normalised'.
Nezodpovｸzeny zヮstèvajó zèva™nï otèzky, proｲ tomu tak je (v konkrïtnｸjþóch oblastech, napﾖóklad pokud jde o sexuèlnó zneu™óvènó dｸtó, existujó nèznaky toho, ™e masovï informaｲnó kampanｸ mohou ve skuteｲnosti pﾖispｸt k tomu, aby tyto jevy byly mïnｸ ¶normèlnóƒ a poskyt-nout kontext k procesu sebeospravedlnｸnó, kter̅m pachatelï prochèzejó).
There are serious questions unanswered about why this is so (in more speci«careas,forexamplesexualabuseofchildren,thereareindicationsthatmasspublic awareness campaigns may in fact contribute to such `normalisation' and provide a context for the self-justi«cationprocessthatabusersgothrough).Whateverthereasons,thisclearly remains a major challenge for Europe.
Projekty DAPHNE se rozsèhle a pravidelnｸ vyhodnocovaly.
Daphne projects have been extensively and regularly evaluated.
Komplexnó studie v roce 2003 ana-
In 2003, a comprehensive
1 1 lyzovala v̅stupy a v̅sledky 303 (
1 1 study analysed the outputs and outcomes of the 303 (
) projektヮ «nancovan̅chmeziroky1997a2003,kterïpﾖed- stavovaly vóce ne™ 1500 partnerヮ.
2003, representing more than 1 500 partners.
Komisi to umo™nilo zóskat perfektnó pﾖehled o jednotliv̅ch v̅sledcóch a jejich dopadech, ale takï si potvrdila u™iteｲnost a efektivnost programu.
This enabled the Commission to have a precise idea of individual results and impacts, but also to con«rmthee.ectivenessandthee/ciencyof the programme.
Neustèlï vyhodnocovènó ukèzalo, ™e program DAPHNE je efektivnó, tj. jeho v̅sledky a jejich dopad pﾖispóvajó k dosa™enó stanoven̅ch cólヮ. àｲinnost programu je dolo™ena pヮsobiv̅m mno™stvóm v̅stupヮ a v̅sledkヮ v porovnènó s pﾖidｸlen̅mi zdroji.
This continuous evaluation work shows that Daphne is e.ective,i.e.itsresultsandtheirim-pacts contribute to achieving its objectives. The e/ciencyoftheprogrammeisevidencedbythe impressive number of outputs and outcomes, compared with the resources allocated.
Jakmile je projekt dokonｲen, pﾖichèzó ke slovu jeho nedostateｲnï þóﾖenó a nèslednï «nancovènó.
Once the project is completed, insuf-«cientdisseminationandpost-projectfundingareimplemented.
Typologie projektヮ v letech 1997 a™ 2003
Project typology between 1997 and 2003
Koneｲnï zhodnocenó programu DAPHNE poskytlo spoustu ÿdajヮ o projektech, jejich v̅stu-pech a v̅sledcóch. Budeme se jimi zab̅vat v kapitole 4.
The « n a l e v a l u a t i o nffo f t h e D a p h n e p r o g r a m mffe p r o v i d e d p l e n tffy o f d a t a cffo n c e r n i n g t h e p r o j e c t s , their outputs and outcomes.
Zde je porovnènó projektヮ vｸnovan̅ch dｸtem/mlède™i a ™enèm nebo kombinovan̅m cólov̅m skupinèm:
(a) There is a balance between projects dedicated to children/young people and to women or to combined targets:
Pﾖibli™nｸ 39 % projektヮ se konkrïtnｸ t̅kalo jednoho typu koncovïho pﾖójemce (dｸtó, mlède™e nebo ™en). Seskupenó typヮ koncov̅ch pﾖójemcヮ ukazuje, ™e ¶dｸtóƒ se t̅kalo 48 % projektヮ, mlède™e 52 % a ™en 61 %.
Some 39 % of the projects speci«callyaddressedonetypeofend-bene«ciary(children,young people or women).
) Z t┞chto 303 #nancovanþchprojekt╉jich bylo 218 podrobn┞ analyzovâno, c o Š p┼edstavovalo 1212 partner╉.
) Of these 303 funded projects, 218 were analysed in detail, representing 1 212 partners.
Dalùî projekty nebylo m o Š n ê z r╉znþch d╉vod╉ kontaktovat: bankrot, p┼est┞hovânî klî┘ovþch osob, dokumentace j i Š nenî k dispozici atd.
Other projects could not be contacted for various reasons: bankruptcy, move of the key person, documentation no longer available, etc.
Z t┞chto 218 projekt╉ jich bylo 148 v dob┞ studie dokon┘eno a k dispozici byla dokumentace jejich vþstup╉ a vþsledk╉.
Of these 218 projects, 148 were completed at the time of the study and could deliver documentation on outputs and outcomes.
Ka™d̅m typem koncovïho pﾖójemce se mysló jedna nebo vóce podkategorió, jak je uvedeno dèle:
Each type of end-bene«ciaryreferstooneormoresubcategoriesasfollows:
Domècó pracovnóci
Domestic workers
Lidï ve vｸzenó nebo vazbｸ
People in prison or in custody
Lidï v ÿtulcóch/ÿstavech
People in shelters/institutions
(b) 21 % projektヮ je vócelet̅ch (dva nebo tﾖi roky), co™ zlepþuje jejich udr™itelnost.
(b) 21 % of the projects are multiannual (two or three years), which improves their sustainabil-ity.
Tyto pro-jekty vþak velmi zatｸ™ujó rozpoｲet, proto je jejich poｲet omezen;
But these projects weigh heavily on the budget; this is why their number was limited.
(c) àｲastnó se vþech 15 ｲlensk̅ch stètヮ (jako koordinètoﾖi nebo partneﾖi), organizace EFTA/EEE a CEEC pﾖedstavujó 6 % z celkovïho poｲtu partnerヮ;
(c) All 15 Member States are involved (as coordinator or partner) and organisations in the EFTA/EEA and central and east European countries represent 6 % of the total number of partners.
(d) Prヮmｸrn̅ poｲet partnerヮ v jednom projektu je 6, ale 3 % projektヮ majó 10 nebo vóce part-nerヮ (v tom pﾖópadｸ hlavnｸ móstnóch partnerヮ). Na zèkladｸ monitorovacóch nèvþtｸv a ze zpｸtnïho vyhodnocenó se ukèzalo, ™e ka™d̅ projekt mè obvykle pﾖóliþ mnoho partnerヮ, ne™ aby se ka™d̅ z nich mohl projektu adekvètnｸ ÿｲastnit. Kromｸ toho, k managementu to pﾖidèvè bﾖómｸ koordinètorヮ, co™ je ke þkodｸ hlavnóch aktivit projektu;
(d) The average number of partners per projects is six, but 3 % of the projects have 10 or more partners (mainly local partners in these cases).
(e) Projektヮ se ÿｲastnó organizace nèsledujócóch kategoró: viz dalþó strana
(e) Organisations participating in projects are of the following categories (see next page):
Nevlèdnó organizace byly v™dy stﾖedem pozornosti Daphne.
NGOs have always been the focus of Daphne.
Pﾖedstavovaly 56 % partnerヮ a 65 % koordinètorヮ projektヮ.
They represent 56 % of the partners and 65 % of the project coordinators.
Nicmïnｸ v roce 2002 a 2003 pomｸr koordinètorヮ z nevlèd-nóch organizacó klesl z 65 % na 54 % ve srovnènó s pﾖedchozómi roky. Poｲet v̅zkumn̅ch center, univerzit a veﾖejn̅ch institucó v roli koordinètorヮ se zv̅þil: ka™d̅ z nich pﾖedstavoval asi 13 %.
Nevertheless, in 2002 and 2003 the proportion of NGOs as co-ordinators decreased from 65 % to 54 % compared with previous years.
K tomuto v̅voji doþlo pravdｸpodobnｸ dóky dvｸma faktorヮm: za prvï, od roku 2000 si veﾖejnï instituce mohly podat ™èdost; za druhï, jak uvedlo nｸkolik podólnókヮ, nｸ-kterï nevlèdnó organizace mohly odrazovat rostoucó po™adavky a procedury mechanizmu « n a n c o v è n ó E U b ｸ h e m l e t .
This evolution is probably due to two factors: «rst,since2000,publicinstitutions have been allowed to apply; second, as stated by several stakeholders, some NGOs might have been discouraged by the increasing requirements and procedures of the EU funding schemes over the years.
V e s k u t e ｲ n o s t i m e z i 4 1 p r o j e k t y « n a n c o v a n ̅ m i v roce2000nebo2001 a koordinovan̅mi nevlèdnómi organizacemi nebylo 71 % spokojeno s rychlostó a po-hotovostó platebnóch procedur ve srovnènó s 32 % pro 19 projektヮ «nancovan̅chvestejnïmroce a nekoordinovan̅ch nevlèdnómi organizacemi (viz takï bod 4.5 o mechanizmech re-alizace a dodèvkèch).
In fact, among 41 projects funded in 2000 or 2001 and coordinated by an NGO, 71 % were not satis«edwiththepromptnessofthepaymentpro-cedures compared with 32 % for 19 projects funded in the same years and not coordinated by an NGO (see also point 4.5 on implementation and delivery mechanisms).
Nevlèdnó organizace jsou v projektu Daphne klóｲov̅mi hrèｲi.
NGOs are key players in Daphne projects.
Rozbor ukazuje, ™e mezi 25 do-konｲen̅mi projekty s tｸsn̅mi kontakty na koncovï pﾖójemce jich bylo 22 koordinovèno nevlèd-
The analysis shows that, among the 25 «nishedprojects with close contacts with e n d - b e n e « c i a r i e s , 2 2 w e r e cffo o r d i n a t e d b y a n N G O . T h i s
Dobroｲinnï organizace
Charitable institutions
Soukromï «rmy
Private companies
Kategorie partnerヮ a koordinètorヮ (1212 partnerヮ ̈, 218 koordinètorヮ ̈) v ÿvahu, kdy™ ﾖókè, ™e ¶Stèle je nejlepþó spolïhat se na organizace zodpovｸdnï za poskytovènó po-moci obｸtem, kdy™ je tﾖeba spojit se s pﾖójemci tｸchto aktivit a pomoci jim.ƒ
Categories of partners and coordinators (1 212 partners i, 218 coordinatorsi) was taken into account in the proposal of the Commission to establish the Daphne II pro- gramme (2004›08) (12
(f) Projekty jsou pﾖedevþóm zamｸﾖeny na prostﾖednóky pracujócó pﾖómo s koncov̅mi pﾖójemci, jako jsou socièlnó a vzdｸlèvacó pracovnóci, zdravotnóci a policie.
), stating that `organisations responsible for assistance to victims are still the best relay to reach and help the bene«ciariesoftheseactions'.
Cólem projektヮ jsou takï veﾖejnï ÿﾖady.
(f) Above all, the projects target the intermediaries working directly with the end-bene«ciar-ies such as social workers, educational sta.,medicalsta.andthepolice.Publicauthoritiesare also targeted.
Z 218 projektヮ jich 92 % zahrnuje cólovï skupiny a 75 % vykazuje jejich ak-tivnó zapojenó v roli poradcヮ a/nebo vykonavatelヮ pﾖi nèvrhu, bｸhu a podpoﾖe projektu.
Out of 218 projects, 92 % involve target groups and 75 % show their ac-tive involvement as adviser and/or executor in the design, running and promotion of the project.
Toto aktivnó zapojenó je velice dヮle™it̅m faktorem pヮsobenó a vlivu, jak podrobnｸ popisu-jeme nó™e v ｲèsti 4.4.
This active involvement is a very important factor in the impact of the projects as described in more detail in point 4.4 below.
(g) Oblasti nèsiló, kter̅mi se zab̅valy vybranï projekty, jsou rozdｸleny nèsledovnｸ:
(g) The areas of violence tackled by the selected projects are split as follows:
(h) Velkè vｸtþina partnerヮ mè dlouhodobï zkuþenosti s prevencó nebo ochranou proti nèsiló„
(h) A vast majority of the partners have a long experience of violence prevention or protection „
„ a tyto zkuþenosti v projektech vyu™óvajó: existuje velkè shoda mezi oblastó jejich znalos-tó a oblastó, kterou se projekt zab̅vè, jak mヮ™ete vidｸt na nèsledujócóm diagramu:
„ and that experience is used in the projects: there is a great correspondence between their area of expertise and the area tackled by the project, as can be seen from the follow-ing diagram:
7 % i Oblasti projektu spadajó do ¶hlavnó ｲinnostiƒ koordinètora i"Jedna oblast projektu spadè do
7 % i Areas of the project are in the `core activities' of the coordinator
¶hlavnó ｲinnostiƒ koordinètora i"Oblasti projektu le™ó mimo ¶hlavnó ｲinnostiƒ koordinètora
(i) A link with past projects and synergies with running projects were developed: as sug-gested in the priorities of the calls for proposals, a number of projects have built upon the experience of others or have developed synergies with other running projects as follows:
104 (50 %) projektヮ souvisó s pﾖedchozómi projekty:‡ Pro 80 z nich to byly projekty Daphne.
‡ for 80 of these, this was with a Daphne project. One of them also has a link with a local project and one with a project funded by the Education and Culture Directorate- General;
Jeden z nich souvisó takï s móstnóm projektem a jeden souvisó s projektem « n a n c o v a n ̅ m E d u c a t i o n a n d C u l t u r e D i r e c t o r a t e G e n e r a l ( g e n e r è l n ó ﾖeditelstvó pro vzdｸlèvènó a kulturu);‡ 9 projektヮ bylo «nancovènomóstnómi/regionèlnómi/nèrodnómiÿﾖady/organizacemi;‡ 2 projekty byly «nancovènyzvlastnóchzdrojヮ;‡ 2 projekty byly « n a n c o v è n y p r o g r a m e m S T O P ; ‡ 2 projekty byly « n a n c o v è n y p r o g r a m e m E Q U A L ( P o v e r t y E r a d i c a t i o n a n d s o c i a l e x c l u s i - o n a NOW initiative › Likvidace chudoby a spoleｲenskï izolace a Iniciativa NOW);
‡ nine projects were funded by local/regional/national authorities/organisations;
‡ 8 projektヮ bylo « n a n c o v è n o j i n ̅ m ip r o g r a m y E S ( I n j u r y p r o t e c t i o n f r o m H e a l t h a n d C o n s u m e r Protection Directorate General › Ochrana proti zranｸnó od generèlnóho ﾖedi-telstvó pro zdravó a ochranu spotﾖebitelヮ, ¶Jeunesse pour l Europeƒ › Mlède™ pro Evropu, ¶DG information, Communication, Culture and Audiovisualƒ › generèlnó ﾖeditelstvó pro informace, komunikaci, kulturu a audiovizuèlnó prostﾖedky, ¶Employment and Social Af-fairs Directorate Generalƒ › generèlnó ﾖeditelstvó pro zamｸstnanost a socièlnó zèle™itosti, ¶Europe against AIDSƒ › Evropa proti AIDS, ¶Education and Culture Directorate Generalƒ › generèlnó ﾖeditelstvó pro v̅chovu a kulturu, ¶Internal Market Directorate Generalƒ › ge-nerèlnó ﾖeditelstvó pro vnitﾖnó trh, ¶Leonardoƒ) (ka™d̅ 1 projekt);‡ 1 projekt je « n a n c o v è n N è r o d n ó r a d o up r a c o v n ó k ヮ v e v ̅ z k u mffu .
‡ eight projects were funded by other EC programmes (`Injury protection' from the Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General, `Jeunesse pour l'Europe', Information, Communication, Culture and Audiovisual Directorate-General, Employment and Social A . a i r s D i r e c t o r a t e - G e n e r a l , ` E u r op e a g a i n s t A I D S ' , E d u c a t i o n a n d C u l tffu r e D i r e c t o r a t e - G e n - e r a l , Internal Market Directorate General, `Leonardo da Vinci') (one project each);
Typy propojenó s pﾖedchozómi projekty
Type of link with previous project
Pﾖedchozó projekt poskytl projektu myþlenku
Previous project gave the idea of the project
Projekt vyu™óvè v̅sledkヮ pﾖedchozóho projektu
Project uses results of previous project
Projekt zajiþﾝuje/rozþiﾖuje v̅sledky pﾖedchozóho projektu
Project reinforces/extends results of previous project
Projekt þóﾖó v̅sledky pﾖedchozóho projektu
Project disseminates results of previous project
Projekt replikuje v̅sledky na jinï oblasti nèsiló
Project replicates results to other areas of violence
Projekt replikuje v̅sledky na jinï mósto
Project replicates results to another location
Projekty vyvójejócó spoluprèci s ostatnómi bｸ™ócómi projekty
Projects developing synergies with other running projects
61 projektヮ (29 %) spolupracovalo s jin̅m bｸ™ócóm projektem:
Sixty-one projects (29 %) have synergies with another running project:
‡ 7 projektヮ byly projekty Daphne, z nich™ 1 spolupracoval takï s nèrodnómi projekty;
‡ seven projects were Daphne projects, including one that also developed synergies with national projects;
‡ 29 projektヮ bylo «nancovènomóstnómi/regionèlnómi/nèrodnómiÿﾖady/organizacemi;
‡ 29 projects were funded by local/regional/national authorities/organisations;
‡ 4 projekty « n a n c o v a l p r o g r a m E Q U A L ( a t o N O W a I n i c i a t i v y p r è c e ( k a ™ d ̅ 1 p r o j e k t ) a t a k ï S o c i a l Exclusion (Spoleｲenskè izolace) (2 projekty));
‡ four projects were funded by the EQUAL programme (respectively by the `NOW' and `Em-ployment' initiatives (one project each) as well as `Social exclusion' (two projects));
‡ 2 projekty «nancovalogenerèlnóﾖeditelstvóprozamｸstnanostasocièlnózèle™itosti;
‡ two projects were funded by Employment and Social A . a i r s D i r e c t o r a t e - G e n e r a l ;
‡ 2 projekty byly « n a n c o v è n y z p r o g r a mffu L e o n a r d o d a V i n c i ;
‡ two projects were funded by the `Leonardo da Vinci' programme;
‡ 1 projekt mè kontakty s European Observatory on violence (Evropsk̅ dohled nad nèsi-lóm).
‡ three projects of networks of associations;‡ one project was funded by the Catholic Overseas Development Fund;‡ one project had contacts with the European Observatory on Violence.