natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
‡ the image of the child and of women and the role of advertising, broadcast and print media and other mass media in protection and prevention ̌ an attempt to mobilise and inform press players in Europe in the wake of continued broad coverage of such issues demonstrating incomplete understanding;
‡ predstava o dieﾝati a ™ene a ÿloha reklamy, vysielania, tlaｲen̅ch mïdió a in̅ch masovoko-munikaｲn̅ch prostriedkov pri ochrane a prevencii › pokus o mobilizèciu a informovanie zèstupcov mïdió v Eurùpe nakoﾋko pri pokraｲujÿcom rozsiahlom spracovèvanó t̅chto otè-zok vyþlo najavo znaｲnï nepochopenie problïmu;
‡ the impact of pornography, in particular of child pornography ̌ aimed at complementing work done elsewhere in the Commission on the vehicles used to transmit pornography.
‡ vplyv pornogra«e,najmêdetskejpornogra«e› zameranïnadoplnenieprècevykonanejv rèmci Komisie o nèstrojoch þórenia pornogra«e.
In the event, the projects subsequently accepted for funding did indeed re‹ectthesesugges-tions, even if they did not in most cases exactly reproduce them.
A skutoｲne, vybratï projekty naozaj odrè™ali tieto odporÿｲania, aj keｵ ich vo vêｲþine própadov presne nereprodukovali.
Many more projects in the second year of the Daphne initiative aimed to undertake research or studies as a basis for then developing actions or tools for action.
V druhom roku iniciatóvy Daphne bolo oveﾋa viac projektov zamera-n̅ch na uskutoｲnenie v̅skumu alebo þtÿdie, ako zèkladu pre vtedy sa rozvójajÿce ｲinnosti alebo ich nèstroje.
Many of the projects aimed to «lltheidenti«edgapsin a modest way by «rstpilotingactionswithindistinctvulnerablegroupssuchasruralwom-en, or young people living in institutions.
Mnoho projektov sa sÿstredilo na vyplnenie identi«kovan̅chmedzierfor-mou jednoduch̅ch prv̅ch pilotn̅ch ｲinnostó v rèmci rozdielnych zraniteﾋn̅ch skupón, ako sÿ vidiecke ™eny alebo mladó ﾋudia ™ijÿci v rúznych zariadeniach.
In this way, the Daphne initiative began to lay the foundations of much more solid and usable knowledge and practical experience.
Tak̅mto spúsobom iniciatóva Daphne zaｲala klèsﾝ zèklady trval̅ch a vyu™iteﾋn̅ch poznatkov a praktick̅ch skÿsenostó.
E . o r t s t o l e a r n l e s s o n s f r o m i n i t i a l e x p e r i e n c e s o f t h e D a p h n e i n i t i a t i v e , a n d t o bu i l d t h e s e i n t o an improved programme that would be more likely to have real impact, grow the knowl-edge base in Europe and produce value for the European Commission, were supported by the creation in 1998 of a simple newsletter called Daphne News.
Snahy pouｲiﾝ sa z prv̅ch skÿsenostó iniciatóvy Daphne a vybudovaﾝ na nich kvalitnejþó program, ktor̅ by skúr mohol maﾝ skutoｲn̅ dosah, mohol zvyþovaﾝ vedomostnÿ zèkladﾏu v Eurùpe a vytvèraﾝ hodnoty pre Eurùpsku komisiu, naþli v roku 1998 podporu vo vzniku jednoduchï-ho bulletinu Daphne News (Sprèvy Daphne).
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.
Tèto iniciatóva Komisie bola vytvorenè najmê na ÿｲely ¶situovaniaƒ Daphne ako programu podporujÿceho anal̅zu a re‹exiu,v̅menuinfor-mèció a komunikèciu nielen medzi rúznymi agentÿrami, ale aj s aktóvnou ÿｲasﾝou Komisie.
Daphne News took an informal tone in sharing information on the Daphne initiative itself and on projects that had received monitoring visits.
Bulletin Daphne News sa niesol v neformèlnom duchu a poskytoval informècie o samotnej iniciatóve Daphne a o projektoch, ktorï sa monitorovali.
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.
Slÿ™il na to, aby si organizècie, ktorï projekty prève zavèdzali, alebo u™ svoje projektovï aktivity ukonｲili, vymieﾏali nèzory na za-ujómavï projekty, própadne uvèdzal zoznamy, napróklad, nov̅ch vybran̅ch projektov.
Through this list, in particular, organisations were able to learn about other organisations working in the same area as them in other Member States.
V praxi sa mohli prostrednóctvom takïhoto zoznamu organizècie dozvedieﾝ o in̅ch organizècièch v in̅ch ｲlensk̅ch þtètoch a púsobiacich v rovnakej oblasti.
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'.
Po ｲase sa mnohï organizècie skontaktovali, aby si navrhli partnerstvo v nov̅ch projektoch Daphne › vlastne a™ v takom rozsahu, ™e ﾋudia v organizècièch a samozrejme v Komisii zaｲali hovoriﾝ o ¶rodine Daphneƒ.
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.
Tieto partnerstvè ｲasto pokraｲovali aj dlho po ukonｲenó projektu Daphne, kvúli ktorïmu vznik-li, a v niektor̅ch própadoch boli zapracovanï do þtruktÿry organizèció.
For exam-ple, a 1998 project implemented by Radda Barnen (Save the Children Sweden) that identi«eda small NGO as a partner in Spain resulted in the Spanish organisation in time becoming Save the Children Spain.
Napróklad projekt, kto-r̅ v roku 1998 predlo™il Radda Barnen (Zachrèﾏte deti Þvïdsko), priｲom si za partnera zvolil malÿ þpanielsku MVO, viedol k formovaniu þpanielskej organizècie ｲasom nazvanej Zachrèﾏ-te deti Þpanielsko.
Unfortunately, the compilation, writing and distribution of Daphne News was time-consuming for the small team of people working on the Daphne initiative.
Zostavovanie, pósanie a distribÿcia Daphne News vþak bohu™iaﾋ bola pre mal̅ tóm ﾋudó pracu-jÿcich v iniciatóve Daphne ｲasovo nèroｲnè.
Daphne News ceased to exist after the third issue in May 1999 and is now replaced by a website, regularly updated.
Bulletin Daphne News zanikol po treﾝom vydanó v mèji 1999 a v sÿｲasnosti ho nahradila pravidelne aktualizovanè webovè strènka. Jej adresa je: h t t p : / / e u r o p a . e u . i n t / c o m m / j u s t i c e _ h o m e / 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
Again in 1999, the last year of the Daphne initiative, the lessons learned through project visits, reports (including a «rstexternalevaluationreportbyanindependentteamofexpertsonthe1997 initiative) and selection and monitoring processes were built into the call for proposals and guidelines for applicants.
Aj v roku 1999, v poslednom roku iniciatóvy Daphne, poznatky zóskanï z projektov a sprèv (vrètane prvej externej hodnotiacej sprèvy o Iniciatóve 1997 vypracovanej nezèvisl̅m tómom odbornókov), ako aj z v̅berovïho a monitorovacieho procesu sa pou™ili pri ｵalþej v̅zve na podèvanie projektov a usmerneniach pre ™iadateﾋov.
Additionally the Daphne website, which was launched in the
Okrem toho webovè strènka Daphne spustenè v prvom þtvrﾝroku 2000 poskytovala organizècièm, ktorï uva™ovali o podanó ™iados-ti o «nancovanie,próle™itosﾝpreｲótaﾝsizèvereｲnïsprèvyvþetk̅chprojektovukonｲen̅ch
«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.
Ciele a priority v roku 1997 a prostrednóctvom jednoduchïho vyhﾋadèvania podﾋa kﾋÿｲov̅ch slov, mo™nosﾝ sÿstrediﾝ sa na prècu vykonanÿ v oblasti, v ktorej zva™ovali podaﾝ projekt.
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.
Po preｲótanó podan̅ch projektov za rok 1998 sa ukèzalo, ™e hoci mnohï z projektov tvrdili o predkladan̅ch aktivitèch, ™e sÿ navrhovanï ¶vúbec po prv̅ razƒ, tieto aktivity sa u™ v Eurùpe zrealizovali, alebo ich dokonca « n a n c o v a l a s a m o t n è i n i c i a t ó v a D a p h n e .
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.
P r e t o v ̅ z v a n a p r e d - k l a d a n i e nèvrhov v roku 1999 zdúrazﾏovala nevyhnutnosﾝ, aby sa organizècie pripravujÿce projekty informovali o ｲinnostiach, ktorï sa u™ vykonali a, pokiaﾋ to bolo mo™nï, vychèdzali z nich, própadne ich upravili pre þirþie vyu™itie v Eà alebo pre uplatnenie v in̅ch situècièch. Tento podnet skúr ¶stavaﾝ na existujÿcomƒ ako ¶znova objavovaﾝƒ sa vlastne opakoval ka™d̅ rok poｲnÿc rokom 1999, napriek tomu mno™stvo podan̅ch projektov znova navrhovalo ｲin-nosti bez zohﾋadnenia predchèdzajÿcich skÿsenostó.
In 1999, a number of new issues also began to emerge, however.
V roku 1999 sa vþak objavilo aj veﾋa nov̅ch okruhov tïm na spracovanie.
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.
Napróklad, orientècia na zvyþovanie povedomia o nèsiló voｲi ™enèm v Eurùpe v roku 1999 znamenala nèrast projek-tov na zvyþovanie povedomia v oblasti pohlavne diferencovanïho nèsilia vo vþeobecnosti a domèceho nèsilia konkrïtne.
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.
Rastÿca pozornosﾝ, ktorÿ verejnosﾝ aj politici venovali otèzke prisﾝahovalectva do Eurùpy, ako aj obavy, ™e nepochopenie tejto problematiky zv̅þi diskri-minèciu a zneu™óvanie prisﾝahovalcov ™ijÿcich a pracujÿcich v Eurùpe, iniciovali mnohï pro-jekty zameranï na prèva prisﾝahovalcov a na pomoc obetiam rasizmu a diskriminècie.
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 .
Rastÿcemu mno™stvu projektov, ktorï odrè™ali novÿ nèplﾏ prèce pre MVO a þtètne orgèny v Eurùpe, predchèdzali projekty o skrytom prisﾝahovalectve opusten̅ch malolet̅ch detó, o prèvach prisﾝahovalcov pracujÿcich v domècnostiach, o pomoci obetiam nezèkonnïho ob-chodovania alebo projekty zameranï na prevenciu zneu™óvania prisﾝahovaleck̅ch ™ien a ™ien privezen̅ch v rèmci nezèkonnïho obchodovania.
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 .
Medzi projektmi « n a n c o v a n ̅ m i z i n i c i a t ó v y D a p h n e po prv̅ raz «gurovalitakïzèva™nïtïmyakoznèsilnenie,znetvorenie™ensk̅chge-nitèlió (FGM), ｲi nèsilie ako nèsledok kon‹iktu.
While Daphne projects continued, therefore, to re‹ectwellthenatureofdebateandneedsrelated to violence in Europe, some problems noted from the very beginning of the initiative persisted.
Hoci projekty Daphne priebe™ne primerane odzrkadﾋovali povahu debèt a potrieb sÿvisiacich s nèsilóm v Eurùpe, naｵalej pretrvèvali niektorï problïmy, na ktorï sa poukazovalo od samïho zaｲiatku Iniciatóvy.
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.
Sÿviseli najmê s própravou a riadenóm projektov a vy™adovali si trvalï zvy-þovanie kapacót organizèció, v própade Komisie to bola potreba pokraｲovaﾝ v monitorovanó a poskytovanó odbornïho poradenstva pre projekty a v própade prèce samotnïho tómu Da-phne iþlo o potrebu ｲerpaﾝ poznatky, analyzovaﾝ trendy a rozvójaﾝ iniciatóvu vzhﾋadom na tie-to skutoｲnosti.
In regard to project preparation and planning, there were still weaknesses in:
Pri próprave a plènovanó projektov pretrvèvala neschopnosﾝ:
‡ preparatory research;
‡ vykonaﾝ própravn̅ prieskum;
‡ focusing on cause and e.ectandmatchingactionstotheproblemstheyaimedtosolve;
‡ koncentrovaﾝ sa na próｲiny a dúsledky a k problïmom priraｵovaﾝ ｲinnosti zameranï na ich rieþenie;
‡ 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;
‡ zóskavaﾝ poznatky a vedieﾝ, ako ich vymieﾏaﾝ s prósluþn̅mi skupinami, a najmê ich v prime-ranej forme a s pridanou hodnotou þóriﾝ v ostatn̅ch ｲlensk̅ch þtètoch;
‡ using partnerships to improve coverage and e/ciency;
‡ vyu™óvaﾝ partnerstvo na zv̅þenie dosahu a efektóvnosti;
‡ using the budget to facilitate implementation and output, rather than as a simple `costing' exercise;
‡ vyu™óvaﾝ rozpoｲet na implementèciu projektu a jeho v̅sledky, nie na jednoduchï ¶utrèca-nieƒ;
Many submissions remained local, with token partnerships set up purely for the purpose of satisfying the Daphne selection criteria.
Mnohï podanï projekty ostali na miestnej ÿrovni, so symbolick̅m partnerstvom uzavret̅m len na ÿｲely uspokojenia v̅berov̅ch kritïrió Daphne. Zdalo sa, ™e mnohó autori projektov si
Aims and priorities the potential that having partners in other Member States o.erednotonlyforbroadcoveragebut for improved understanding and analysis, and for support.
Ciele a priority neuvedomovali potencièl partnerstva v inej ｲlenskej krajine, ktorï poskytovalo nielen þirþó dosah, ale aj lepþie porozumenie a anal̅zu, ako aj ÿｲinnejþiu podporu.
On a more positive note, the projects selected continued to break new ground in a number of ways:
Pozitóvne naopak bolo, ™e vybranï projekty opêﾝ v mnoh̅ch ohﾋadoch vykonali pioniersku prècu t̅m, ™e:
‡ they tackled subjects not hitherto attempted;
‡ rieþili doteraz neprebèdanÿ problematiku;
‡ they sometimes piloted new or variant methodologies, often across a number of d i . e r e n t Mffe m b e r States;
‡ niekedy skÿþali novï alebo modi«kovanïmetodiky,ｲastovoviacer̅chｲlensk̅chþtè-toch;
‡ the output of many projects was of a high standard and usable in several Member States, sometimes all;
‡ v̅sledok mnoh̅ch projektov bol na veﾋmi vysokej ÿrovni a vyu™iteﾋn̅ v niekoﾋk̅ch, nieke-dy vþetk̅ch ｲlensk̅ch þtètoch;
‡ new insights were gained through research, studies and data collection, and in particular this often included comparative analysis across the EU;
‡ prostrednóctvom v̅skumu, þtÿdió a zhroma™ｵovania ÿdajov dosiahli nov̅ pohﾋad na danÿ problematiku, priｲom ｲasto zahﾕﾏali komparatóvnu anal̅zu v rèmci celej Eà;
‡ 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.
‡ podpora Komisie otvorila dvere mnoh̅m organizècièm a zlepþila ich schopnosti púsobiﾝ vo vlastnom prostredó, ako aj na eurùpskej (niekedy aj medzinèrodnej) ÿrovni.
`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]
¶Koordinètori projektu sa domnievajÿ, ™e ¶znaｲkaƒ Eurùpskej komisie bola rozhodujÿca a do-dèvala dúveryhodnosﾝ ich prèci... ｲlenovia tómu zaznamenali okam™itÿ zmenu v postoji þkol-sk̅ch orgènov.ƒ (Externï hodnotenie Projektu 97/066/WC)
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.
K̅m v roku 2000 nezaviedli program Daphne 2000 › 2003, z trojroｲn̅ch skÿsenostó iniciatóvy Daphne vyplynulo obrovskï mno™stvo novej prèce, priｲom sa v medzinèrodn̅ch kruhoch pravidelne spomónala oddanosﾝ Komisie tejto prèci.
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'.
Podpora zo strany MVO bola v̅raznè a poznatky z projektov Daphne si naþli cestu na konfe-rencie a seminère v in̅ch regiùnoch vｵaka vedÿcim a partnersk̅m organizècièm, ktorï ¶ich þórili ｵalejƒ.
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:
V roku 1999 dostal sprèvu o Daphne V̅bor OSN pre prèva detó; ｵalþia sprèva pre Svetov̅ kongres proti pohlavnïmu zneu™óvaniu detó na komerｲnï ÿｲely oznaｲila program Daphne ako próklad dobre zorganizovanej regionèlnej prèce. ¶Duchƒ ｲinnostó programu Da-phne bol charakterizovan̅ pomocou nasledovn̅ch bodov:
‡ taking calculated risks to break new ground,
‡ podstupovanie primeranïho rizika s cieﾋom otvoriﾝ novï priestory;
‡ learning and sharing,
‡ zóskavanie a poskytovanie poznatkov;
‡ supporting partnerships both in projects and with the Commission,
‡ podporovanie partnerstiev v rèmci projektov a v rèmci spoluprèce s Komisiou;
‡ promoting added value across the Member States,
‡ zvyþovanie pridanej hodnoty v ｲlensk̅ch þtètoch;
‡ remaining focused on the victim,
‡ trvalï sÿstredenie sa na obete;
‡ seeking to empower protection structures, groups and individuals,
‡ posilﾏovanie ochrann̅ch þtruktÿr, skupón a jednotlivcov;
‡ 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.
‡ komplexnï rieþenie nèsilia z hﾋadiska prevencie, ochrany, podpory, rehabilitècie v kontexte najzèkladnejþóch informèció o eurùpskej a nèrodnej realite.
The Commission's close engagement with the projects was hailed as a rare example of sup-port that went beyond funding to real commitment.
Spomónanï charakteristiky zdúvodﾏujÿ neustèlu podporu zo strany mimovlèdnych organizè-ció, þtètnych orgènov a in̅ch ÿｲastnókov, priｲom veﾋkè zainteresovanosﾝ Komisie na projektoch sa vyzdvihovala ako vzècny próklad podpory, ktorè sa povzniesla nad ｲisto materièlnu pod-poru a prerèstla do skutoｲnïho ¶odovzdania saƒ tejto prèci.
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.
Program Daphne pokraｲoval v zèkladnej lónii iniciatóvy, ale s tromi dúle™it̅mi inovèciami: mo™-nosﾝ podaﾝ prihlèþku aj pre krajiny EFTA/EEA a CEE, Cyprus, Maltu a Turecko; otvorenie progra-mu pre miestne samosprèvy nielen v postavenó partnerov, ale aj vo funkcii vedÿcich projektov; mo™nosﾝ projektov v trvanó do troch rokov. Viedlo to vþak k urｲit̅m komplikècièm.
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 . 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.
Prvou bola skutoｲnosﾝ, ™e zapojenie neｲlensk̅ch þtètov do programu zèviselo na rèmcov̅ch dohodèch platn̅ch medzi Eà a t̅mito þtètmi, priｲom zatiaﾋ ™iadna z dohúd medzi Eà a kan-didètskymi krajinami nebola «nalizovanè.Spúsobovalotourｲitïnedorozumeniamedzipred-kladateﾋmi projektov, nakoﾋko mnoho projektov sa rozhodlo nadviazaﾝ ÿplnï partnerstvo s kandidètskymi þtètmi › ｲo v niektor̅ch própadoch zodpovedalo programovej po™iadavke, najmê v própade projektov zaoberajÿcich sa cezhraniｲn̅mi otèzkami v oblasti nezèkonnïho obchodovania a prisﾝahovalectva › priｲom ich projekty bolo treba prehodnocovaﾝ, aby mohli byﾝ odporuｲenï na «nancovanie.
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.
Potreba, aby v̅berovè komisia navrhovala, ako by takïto projekty mali byﾝ prehodnotenï bez naruþenia v̅sledkov (aby organizècie dostali odporÿｲania u™ v liste oznamujÿcom pozitóvny v̅sledok ich ™iadosti), vytvorila precedens, na zèklade ktorïho sa v̅berovè komisia mala na navrhovanó ÿprav «nancovan̅chprojektovpodieﾋaﾝvovêｲþejmierehneｵnazaｲiatkucelïhoprocesu.
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.
Keｵ sa obzrieme spêﾝ, bol to pozitóvny krok, preto™e v̅berovè komisia sa v rúznych obdobiach skladala z odbornókov z oblasti metodiky, v̅skumu a zhroma™ｵovania ÿdajov, zdravotnóctva, vymèhateﾋnosti prèva, plènovania zalo™enïho na prève, informovania a komu-nikècie a z in̅ch oblastó socièlneho plènovania.
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.
Tóto odbornóci boli kompetentnó, bez v̅raz-nïho zèsahu do nèvrhu projektu, upozorniﾝ koordinètora programu Daphne na detaily, na ktorï by sa mohla sÿstrediﾝ zavèdzajÿca organizècia, própadne vedeli navrhnÿﾝ zjednoduþenie projektu tam, kde vznikala mo™nosﾝ prekroｲenia kapacót, alebo naopak, navrhnÿﾝ drobnï dodatky k projektu, ktorï by mohli zv̅þiﾝ jeho dosah alebo pokrytie.
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.
Druhè inovècia, rozþórenie v̅zvy na miestne samosprèvy vo funkcii vedÿcich projektu, nebo-la komplikovanè a nespúsobovala ™iadne novï problïmy. V praxi vþak boli miestne samosprè-vy pomalï a v porovnanó s ich postavenóm v ÿlohe partnerov sa vo funkcii vedÿcich projektov realizovali so znaｲn̅mi ﾝa™kosﾝami.