natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
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.
Tretia zmena, zavedenie viacroｲn̅ch projektov, mala v̅razn̅ vplyv na riadenie celkovïho rozpoｲtu programu Daphne a nepriamo aj na v̅ber projektov. V prvom roku programu Daph- ne museli byﾝ prostriedky, ktorï boli urｲenï na «nancovanieprojektovnad12mesiacov,vy-ﾏatï z rozpoｲtu na dan̅ jeden rok.
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.
V opaｲnom própade by mohlo dújsﾝ k v̅raznïmu znó™eniu poｲtu projektov «nancovan̅chvtomtoroku,preto™e,jedentrojroｲn̅projektbyvyｲerpalprostriedky urｲenï pre tri jednoroｲnï projekty.
This would risk discouraging applicants.
Tèto situècia predstavovala riziko odradenia própadn̅ch ™iadateﾋov.
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).
Preto sa rozhodlo, ™e sa poｲet viacroｲn̅ch projektov obmedzó, aby nedochèdzalo k znev̅hodﾏovaniu t̅ch, ktoró pociﾝovali, ™e ich kapacita nepostaｲuje na ria-denie viacroｲnïho projektu (napróklad z dúvodu nepostaｲujÿcej veﾋkosti organizècie v danom ｲase, ktorè znemo™ﾏovala pokrytie nèkladov s ｲasovo posunut̅m ｲerpanóm zdrojov dlhþie ako jeden rok).
The Daphne programme was as over-subscribed as the initiative had been.
Program Daphne rovnako ako iniciatóva vzbudil veﾋk̅ zèujem.
In the «rstyear,415 submissions were received, totalling some EUR 40 million.
V prvom roku priþlo 415 nèvrhov v celkovej hodnote pribli™ne 40 miliùnov EUR.
All of the activities recom-mended in the guidelines for applicants were covered in the project submissions, namely:
Vþetky aktivity navrhovanï v pokynoch pre ™iadateﾋov boli v podan̅ch projektoch zohﾋadnenï.
‡ production of common frameworks for violence;
Pozornosﾝ sa venovala nasledovn̅m ob-lastiam:
‡ measurement of the impact of di.erenttypesofviolencetoestablishappropriatere-sponse;
‡ vytvorenie vþeobecn̅ch rèmcov pre oblasﾝ nèsilia;
‡ assessment of measures and practices to prevent and detect violence in order to prevent future exposure to violence;
‡ meranie vplyvu rúznych druhov nèsilia, s cieﾋom zóskania primeranej odozvy;
‡ information campaigns to raise awareness in the public, media and/or targeted profes-sional groups;
‡ hodnotenie opatrenó a postupov prevencie a odhaﾋovania nèsilia, s cieﾋom zabrèniﾝ budÿ-cemu vystaveniu sa nèsiliu;
‡ the development of Community-wide information sources on the various «eldsofvio-lence;
‡ informaｲnï kampane na zvyþovanie povedomia organizovanï na verejn̅ch priestran-stvèch, v mïdièch a/alebo prostrednóctvom vybran̅ch odborn̅ch skupón;
‡ studies of di.erentaspectsofviolenceandhowtopreventthem;
‡ vytvorenie informaｲn̅ch zdrojov o rúznych oblastiach nèsilia pre celï Spoloｲenstvo;
‡ identi«cationofwaystoimproverecognition,reportingandmanagementoftheconse-quences of violence.
‡ identi«kèciametùdnazv̅þeniemieryrozpoznania,ohlasovaniaausmerﾏovaniadúsledkovpèchanïho nèsilia.
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.
Projekty sa sÿstredili na domèce nèsilie, sexuèlne nèsilie vrètane incestu, pohlavne diferenco-vanï nèsilie, nèsilie v þkolèch, psychickï nèsilie, zdravotnï nèsledky nèsilia vrètane ZNETVO-RENIE ç E N S K ä C H GENITÈLIÓ, vymèhateﾋnosﾝ prèva a detskÿ pornogra«unainternete.Podrob-nejþia kategorizècia je uvedenè v prólohe.
`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 %).
¶Pokiaﾋ ide o oblasti púsobnosti: sexuèlne nèsilie vo vþetk̅ch jeho formèch jednoznaｲne vedie (sexuèlne nèsilie 17 %, pohlavnï zneu™óvanie na komerｲnï ÿｲely 8 %, nezèkonnï obchodovanie 7 %). Salþou tïmou z hﾋadiska dúle™itosti je pohlavne diferencovanï nèsilie/nèsilie v rodine (po-hlavne diferencovanï nèsilie 8 %, nèsilie v rodine 7 % a nèsilie v domècom kontexte 11 %). In-ternetovè a detskè pornogra«amajÿtie™v̅raznïzastÿpenievov̅þke6%.ƒ
Commission report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the Daphne programme 2000›03, January 2002
(Sprèva Eurùpskej komisie pre Eurùpsky parlament a Radu Eurùpskej ÿnie o programe Daphne 2000 › 2003, januèr 2002)
Submissions continued to fail because they were local and did not attempt to explore the potential of `European-ness'.
Navrhovanï projekty vêｲþinou zlyhèvali, preto™e boli lokèlne zameranï a nesna™ili sa prebè-daﾝ potencièl ¶eurùpskostiƒ.
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.
Tie projekty, ktorï sa pokÿsili ¶byﾝ eurùpskeƒ, dosiahli urｲit̅ ÿspech a ako to vypl̅va z monitorovacóch, zèvereｲn̅ch a hodnotiacich sprèv, porozumenie hodnotèm skutoｲnej ¶eurùpskejƒ akcieschopnosti v tomto smere zaｲalo narastaﾝ. Projekty uvèdzali, ™e:
‡ 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;
‡ boli schopnï identi«kovaﾝnielenrozdielymedziproblïmami,reakciamiaspúsobomprècev jednotliv̅ch ｲlensk̅ch þtètoch, ale aj zmysel konvergencie, ｲo viedlo k ÿspeþnej v̅mene metodók a nèstrojov;
`The researchers, coming from di.erentcountriesandwithdi.erentworkhabits,appliedthemethods from their own vantage point, thus the material gathered is relatively ill-assorted.
¶Vedci z rúznych krajón, ktoró majÿ rúzne pracovnï nèvyky, pou™óvali metùdy na zèklade svojich vlastn̅ch skÿsenostó, tak™e zhroma™den̅ materièl je relatóvne nesÿrod̅.
Despite this, these di.erenceswereanalysedateachjointmeetingandputintoperspectivewithwork habits on the one hand and with the context, reception in the «eld,reactionofauthorities,etc. on the other.' [Project 99/025/C]
Napriek tomu sa tieto rozdiely analyzovali na ka™dom spoloｲnom stretnutó a zosÿlaｵovali sa s pracovn̅mi nèvykmi na jednej strane a s kontextom, osvojenóm v danej oblasti, reakciou orgènov atｵ. na druhej strane.ƒ (Projekt 99/025/C)
‡ 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;
‡ hodnota porovnèvacej anal̅zy, napr. prèvnych rèmcov v oblasti sexuèlneho nèsilia, spoｲó-vala vo zv̅þenó porozumenia a schopnosti obhèjiﾝ ÿpravy a harmonizèciu;
‡ 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;
‡ potencièl prenosu poznatkov a v̅meny informèció, metodók a nèstrojov bol ｲoraz zreteﾋ-nejþó, na zèklade postupnïho spoznèvania sa a lepþieho chèpania þpeci«ck̅chsituècióapo-trieb jednotliv̅ch organizèció;
‡ 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.
‡ boli schopnï prekonaﾝ jazykovï bariïry a vytvoriﾝ si komunikaｲn̅ prostriedok, ktor̅ niekto-rï projekty naz̅vali ¶jazykom Daphneƒ, t. j. komunikèciu zalo™enÿ na spoloｲnom chèpanó problïmov a reakció.
We encountered this problem when translating and adapting questionnaires, and it posed a problem even for French-speaking children.
¶Samotnè otèzka prekladu alebo tlmoｲenia takïho pojmu, ako napróklad ,zraniteﾋnosﾝ`, je veﾋ-mi zlo™itè. S t̅mto problïmom sme sa stretli, keｵ sme prekladali a upravovali dotaznóky.
„Vulnerability is a concept that is di/culttotrans-late as it relates to di.erentsemantic(andsocial)«elds:justice,education,medicine,criminol-ogy, protection of children, social work, psychology and cultural anthropology„However, within the team, as a result of the seminars, members became familiar with each other and began to understand each other better.'
Pred-stavoval ﾝa™kosti dokonca aj pre francÿzsky hovoriace deti. ...Zraniteﾋnosﾝ je ﾝa™ko prelo™iteﾋn̅ pojem, nakoﾋko sa vzﾝahuje na viac v̅znamov̅ch (a spoloｲensk̅ch) oblastó: spravodlivosﾝ, vzdelèvanie, medicóna, kriminolùgia, ochrana detó, socièlna prèca, psycholùgia a kultÿrna an-tropolùgia...
[Project 99/025/C]
Vｵaka seminèrom sa vþak ｲlenovia tómu navzèjom spoznèvali a zaｲali si lepþie rozumieﾝ.ƒ [Projekt 99/025/C]
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.
Aj napriek tomu, ™e je potrebnï eþte veﾋa sa uｲiﾝ o tom, ｲo znamenè ¶eurùpsky projektƒ, do roku 2000 sa objavili jasnï signèly o tom, ™e sa mnohï organizècie vｵaka podpore programu Daphne rozvinuli do organizèció skúr s eurùpskym, ako nèrodn̅m alebo lokèlnym v̅zna-mom.
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.
Vo vþeobecnom zèujme vþak bolo, aby program Daphne nebol len mechanizmom krètko-dobïho «nancovania,alesystïmom,vrèmciktorïhobysapoznatkyonèsilóaotom,akonaﾏreagovaﾝ v zmysle ochrany, prevencie a podpory obetiam, mohli vyvinÿﾝ a sformovaﾝ do kom-plexnej odpovede na tento celoeurùpsky problïm.
The key words for the remaining years of the Daphne programme, therefore, became `devel-opment', `building', `adapting' and `extending'.
Kﾋÿｲov̅mi slovami zèvereｲn̅ch rokov programu Daphne sa preto stali pojmy ¶rozvojƒ, ¶tvor-baƒ, ¶adaptèciaƒ a ¶rozþirovanieƒ.
The selection panel focused on projects that aimed to add value to work that had already been done, by:
V̅berovè komisia sa sÿstredila na projekty, ktorï mali za cieﾋ pridaﾝ hodnotu k u™ dosiahnutïmu pokroku formou:
‡ evaluating and testing output and results, adapting them and taking them further;
‡ hodnotenia a overovania v̅stupov a v̅sledkov, ich prispúsobovania a ｵalþieho rozpraco-vania;
‡ 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);
‡ aktualizovania v̅skumu a jeho rozþórenia na vþetky ｲlenskï þtèty a pokiaﾋ to bolo mo™nï, aj na kandidètske krajiny a krajiny EFTA/EEA (+ Cyprus, Maltu a Turecko);
‡ moving from studies and data collection to analysis and, on the basis of this, recommenda-tions and lessons at European level;
‡ prechodu zo þtÿdió a zhroma™ｵovania ÿdajov na anal̅zu, a na jej zèklade formou vyu™itia odporÿｲanó a poznatkov na eurùpskej ÿrovni;
‡ broader application of training and education modules, awareness-raising materials, and operational tools such as questionnaires;
‡ þirþieho vyu™itia v̅cvikov̅ch a vzdelèvacóch modulov, materièlov na zvyþovanie povedo-mia a operaｲn̅ch nèstrojov, ako sÿ dotaznóky;
‡ compilation and documentation of resources made available by Daphne and other sources (web-based, human, publications, audiovisual, training methodologies and packages, etc.).
‡ zostavovania a dokumentècie zdrojov spróstupnen̅ch v rèmci Daphne a in̅ch prameﾏov (internet, ﾋudskï zdroje, publikècie, audiovizuèlne prostriedky, metodiky vzdelèvania, sïrie þkolenó atｵ.).
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.
Na to, aby to bolo mo™nï, bolo by tie™ potrebnï upevniﾝ partnerstvè, rozþóriﾝ siete a zlepþiﾝ kapacitu aj prostrednóctvom trvalej v̅meny informèció, própadne pracovnókov, pravidelnejþej prèce v terïne v ostatn̅ch ｲlensk̅ch þtètoch, ｲi kvalitnejþóch a lepþie zameran̅ch konferenció, seminèrov a in̅ch pracovn̅ch stretnutó.
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.
Zverejnili sa tie™ novï v̅zvy na projekty, ktorï by mohli navrhnÿﾝ ukazovatele hodnotenia, podporiﾝ anal̅zu najlepþej praxe a ukonｲiﾝ mapo-vanie a zbieranie ÿdajov tak, aby existoval komplexn̅ obraz o nèsiló vo vþetk̅ch jeho formèch v Eurùpe.
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.
Dosiahnuﾝ uvedenï ciele v rèmci dan̅ch limitov «nancovaniaprojektovsastaloskutoｲn̅mproblïmom a sÿｲasne s napredovanóm programu Daphne a s poｲtom nèvrhov, ktor̅ sa zvy-þoval na zèklade prósﾋubov Komisie na zlepþenie, sa rozpoｲty stèvali ｲoraz napêtejþie a pre niektorï organizècie sa mo™nosﾝ zlyhania alebo nedokonｲenia ｲinnostó stèvala reèlnou.
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
Mo-nitorovanie projektov zo strany Komisie sa preto naliehavejþie zameralo na pomoc organizè-cièm pri riadenó ich rozpoｲtov a na hﾋadanie nov̅ch spúsobov dosahovania v̅sledkov bez v̅raznïho tlaku na rozpoｲet. Napriek tomu sa zistilo, ™e sa zaｲali zanedbèvaﾝ niektorï oblas-ti ｲinnosti, najmê relatóvne «nanｲnenèroｲnïｲinnostiexternïhohodnotenia(ktorïsizvyｲaj-ne vy™adujÿ externïho konzultanta alebo inþtitÿciu s vysok̅m «nanｲn̅mkrytóm)akomuni-kècia (ｲasto sa zanedbèvali najmê prekladateﾋskï ｲinnosti, ｲóm sa obmedzovala mo™nosﾝ þóre-
Aims and priorities produce all its publications in English only, rather than favour one of the partners' lan-guages!).
Ciele a priority nia informèció, própadne sa prijómali neobvyklï rozhodnutia ohﾋadne jazyka komunikècie › na-próklad v rèmci projektu partnerov z Belgicka, Talianska a Þpanielska sa rozhodlo o próprave vþetk̅ch publikèció v̅luｲne v angliｲtine, namiesto uprednostnenia jednïho z jazykov partne-rov!).
Given its time-bound nature, the Daphne programme 2000›03 also focused increasingly on the ability of projects to sustain their impact and on what the Commission itself could do to facilitate this:
Vzhﾋadom na ｲasovo obmedzen̅ charakter sa program Daphne 2000 › 2003 sÿstredil najmê na schopnosﾝ projektov zachovaﾝ si púsobnosﾝ a na to, ｲo by mohla urobiﾝ samotnè Komisia v rèmci podpory:
‡ the Daphne website was upgraded so that there would be a long-term archive of all project reports;
‡ zvêｲþila sa kapacita webovej strènky programu Daphne, aby mohla obsahovaﾝ archóv sprèv zo vþetk̅ch projektov;
‡ 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. 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;
‡ ¶kni™nicaƒ materièlov s tematikou zvyþovania povedomia, ktorï boli vypracovanï ako sÿ-ｲasﾝ projektov, zaｲala fungovaﾝ v roku 2002, vo forme tlaｲen̅ch dokumentov aj v elektro-nickej podobe na webovej strènke; Organizècièm to umo™ﾏovalo stiahnuﾝ si gra«ckïsÿbo-ry napróklad na plagèty, tak™e myþlienky v oblasti boja proti nèsiliu vypracovanï a overenï v jednom projekte sa mohli rozmno™ovaﾝ aj v ostatn̅ch ｲlensk̅ch þtètoch s minimèlnymi nèkladmi a s maximèlnou konzistentnosﾝou;
‡ 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;
‡ pripravila sa sïria ¶própadov na ilustrèciuƒ, aby prezentovala próklady projektov, ktorï sa « n a n c o v a l i z o z d r o j o v D a p h n e , i c h ÿ s pe þ n o s ﾝ a i c h d o s a h ;
‡ 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.
‡ myþlienka Daphne News mala svoju reprózu vo forme pravideln̅ch e-mailov̅ch sprèv vþetk̅m organizècièm spolupracujÿcim s Daphne, ktorï obsahovali informècie o novo «-nancovan̅ch projektoch, aktualizovanó webovej strènky a o in̅ch v̅znamn̅ch aktivi-tèch.
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.
Projekty v™dy museli maﾝ zabezpeｲenï minimèlne 20 percentnï spolu«nancovanieamoni-toring bol v rastÿcej miere vyu™óvan̅ ako podpora, aby si projekty hﾋadali trvalï «nancovanie,aby tak aktivity « n a n c o v a n ï z r o z p o ｲ t u D a p h n e m o h l i p o k r a ｲ o v a ﾝ a j b e z p o d p o r y K o m i s i e .
Where possible, ideas were shared on where funding might be sourced; nevertheless, ongoing funding re-mained a challenge.
K e ｵ to bolo mo™nï, vymieﾏali sa nèpady o própadn̅ch zdrojoch «nancovania.Trvalï«nanco-vanie vþak ostalo problïmom.
At the Commission itself, consideration was given as early as 2002 to the future of the Daphne programme and its possible renewal.
Samotnè Komisia u™ v roku 2002 uva™ovala o budÿcnosti programu Daphne a o jeho mo™nom obnovenó.
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 .
Poznatky zo sedemroｲnej praxe Daphne sa rozpracovali do predbe™n̅ch nèvrhov zahﾕﾏajÿcich potrebu vêｲþóch «nanｲn̅chzdrojov,abybolomo™nïpodporovaﾝrozsiahlejþieprojekty, ako aj urｲitï nèstroje umo™ﾏujÿce Komisii aktóvne zadèvaﾝ objednèvky na projekty vypﾊﾏajÿce medzery, ktorï Komisia oznaｲila za dúle™itï, no organizècie v t̅chto oblastiach nèvrhy nepodali.
`The Daphne programme is acknowledged as an important multidisciplinary instrument in the campaign against violence and it has acquired international renown.'
¶Program Daphne je uznèvan̅ ako dúle™it̅ multidisciplinèrny nèstroj v kampani proti nèsiliu a zóskal si medzinèrodnï uznanie.ƒ
Resolution of the European Parliament on the mid-term review of the Daphne programme 2000›03
(Sprèva pre Eurùpsky parlament o revózii v polovici púsobenia programu Daphne 2000 › 2003 vypracovanè V̅borom pre prèva ™ien a rovnoprèvnosﾝ próle™itostó)
Exploring violence
Skÿmanie nèsilia
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'.
Sedem rokov púsobnosti, 303 «nancovan̅chprojektov,stovkypracujÿcichorganizècióatisóc-ky ﾋudó zainteresovan̅ch na tejto prèci › to vþetko programu Daphne nestaｲó na presnï de«-novanie pojmu ¶nèsilieƒ.
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.
Od zaｲiatku bolo jasnï, ™e nèsilie nie je jednoduchou zèle™itosﾝou a ™e ak̅koﾋvek pokus o jeho de«nóciubyobmedzovalnielenprijatïnèvrhy,alenajmêvnómanietoho, ｲo tvoró nèsilie a ｲo nie.
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.
Iniciatóva aj program Daphne sa sna™ili skÿmaﾝ nèsilie, tak ako ho vnómajÿ samotnó ﾋudia v Eurùpe › vedÿci, partneri, ÿｲastnóci a prójemcovia aktivót «nanco-van̅ch programom Daphne › a tak podrobne zmapovaﾝ celÿ paletu ｲinnostó, þtruktÿr, rèmcov a postojov, ktorï predstavujÿ ¶nèsilieƒ v Eurùpe.
There is consequently no de«nitionofviolenceincludedinthedecision (10) establishing the Daphne programme 2000›03.
Tak™e ani v rozhodnutó10 o zalo™enó programu Daphne 2000 › 2003 sa nenachèdza ™iadna de«nócianèsilia.Obsahujevþakvþeobecnïustanovenie,ktorïpoukazujenaurｲitïdúsledkynèsilia a ktorï konkrïtne priraｵuje nèsilie k negatóvnym vplyvom na zdravie, keｵ™e prèvny zèklad programu bol zaｲlenen̅ do sekcie verejnïho zdravia. Na zèklade spomónanïho roz-hodnutia:
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. The decision says:
¶Fyzickï, sexuèlne a psychickï nèsilie voｲi deﾝom, mlède™i a ™enèm predstavuje poruþenie ich prèv na ™ivot, bezpeｲnosﾝ, slobodu, dústojnosﾝ a fyzickÿ a citovÿ integritu, ako aj vè™ne ohro-zenie fyzickïho a duþevnïho zdravia obetó podobnïho nèsilia; nèsledky nèsilia sÿ v Spoloｲen-stve tak rozþórenï, ™e predstavujÿ zèva™n̅ zdravotn̅ problïm.
`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 nevyhnutnï rozoznaﾝ vè™ne okam™itï a dlhotrvajÿce nèsledky pre zdravie, psychick̅ a so-cièlny rozvoj a rovnoprèvnosﾝ próle™itostó postihnut̅ch, ktorï nèsilie spúsobuje jednotlivcom, rodinèm a spoloｲenstvu, ako aj vysokï spoloｲenskï a ekonomickï nèklady, ktorï spúsobuje spoloｲnosti ako celku.
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.
Podﾋa d e « n ó c i e S v e t o v e j z d r a v o t n ó c k e j o r g a n i z è c i e , z d r a v i ep r e d s t a v u j e s t a v ÿ p l n e j f y z i c k e j , d u þ e v n e j a socièlnej pohody, nie iba neprótomnosﾝ choroby ｲi telesnej vady.ƒ