Torna al portale Europarl

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (selezionato)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Tale documento non è disponibile nella sua lingua e le viene proposto in un'altra lingua tra quelle disponibili nella barra delle lingue.

Parliamentary questions
12 March 2014
E-002945-14
Question for written answer
to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)
Rule 117
Kriton Arsenis (S&D)

 Subject:  VP/HR — Destruction of Syrian chemical weapons off the coast of Crete
 Answer(s) 

In her answer to a previous question of mine on the destruction of Syria’s chemical arsenal, Baroness Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative for Foreign Affairs, replied that ‘all relevant measures in securing a safe and environmentally sound destruction of all the categories of the Syrian chemical weapons’ had been taken. She also pointed out that all these measures were included in ‘a series of public OPCW (Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) documents’.

Moreover, she gave assurances that: ‘There is no intention to discharge any chemicals or their effluent after hydrolysis into the sea.’

In view of the above, will the High Representative say:

What specific measures have been taken to ensure the safe destruction of these chemical weapons? Will observers-independent scientists from the countries that may be affected be on board, to ensure that the safety measures mentioned by the High Representative are strictly followed during the destruction of the weapons?

In which public documents have these measures been published?

In her answer, the High Representative states that there is no intention to discharge any chemicals or their effluent into the sea. Is she in a position, beyond affirming good intentions, to guarantee that no chemicals or their effluent will be discharged into the sea? What specific guarantees can she offer?

What evidence exists that hydrolysis at sea is the optimal method and the Mediterranean the optimal location, given that just a few months ago Albania had been mooted as a place for the destruction of the chemicals, using a completely different land-based method of destruction? Was the choice of the method of destruction ultimately based on scientific evidence or was it instead determined by the Albanian government’s rejection of the previous proposal?

Original language of question: ELOJ C 326, 19/09/2014
Ultimo aggiornamento: 1 aprile 2014Avviso legale