German MEP Jan Philipp Albrecht and activist Max Schrems criticised the new ruling, as they said the Commission could take a “tour of Luxembourg” (where the European Court of Justice is located).  Vera Jourova, a Member of the European Commission responsible for consumer protection, said she was convinced that an agreement could be reached by the end of February.  Many Europeans have called for a mechanism for individual European citizens to file complaints about the use of their data, as well as a transparency system to ensure that the data of European citizens does not fall into the hands of the US secret services.  The Article 29 group acted on this request and stated that it would not be a further delay, until March 2016, to decide on the consequences of the Commission`s new proposal.  The European Commission`s Director of Fundamental Rights, Paul Nemitz, explained at a conference in Brussels in January how the Commission would decide on the adequacy of data protection.  The Economist predicts that it will be more difficult for the Court of Justice to make it more risky once the Commission has adopted a strengthened “adequacy decision”.  Data protection advocate Joe McNamee summed up the situation by pointing out that the Commission had announced agreements prematurely and had thus lost its right to negotiate.  At the same time, the first legal disputes began in Germany: in February 2016, the Hamburg Data Protection Authority was preparing the dispute of three companies that relied on Safe Harbour as a legal basis for their transatlantic data transfers, and two other companies were investigated.  On the other hand, a reaction was immediate.  As part of environmental protection, a voluntary protection agreement may be reached between landowners and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), under which a landowner implements protection and assistance in the restoration of an endangered endangered species Spec with habitat on its land. In return, the FWS or NOAA promises not to require additional or derogatory conservation measures on the land without the consent of the landowner.
When the contract expires, the landowner is allowed to return to the landscape at his request.  The Safe Harbor has been promoted by legal writers as a reduction in uncertainty created by the use of a vague standard (such as recklessness).  On the other hand, this type of rule-making also avoids the problem of creating a specific rule that does not give a judge a margin of appreciation to authorize “hard cases”. 14-21 In theory, the formulation of safe harbour can combine the merits of vague standards and specific rules, so that Parliament can prescribe with certainty the pre-result for certain predictable cases and leave it to the judges to rule on pending cases. :16-18 Susan Sorrells, referred to as the applicant, applied to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for authorization under Section 10(a) (A) (A) (A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C 1531 ff.). The application for authorization contains a draft Safe Harbor Agreement (SHA) that includes 467 hectares owned by the applicant in Inyo County, California. The proposed duration of the authorization and the SHA is 30 years. The authorization would authorize the accidental capture of the at-risk muhlaus amargosa (Microtus californicus scirpensis) in exchange for habitat conservation measures to provide the species with a clear conservation benefit. We have prepared a draft Environmental Action Statement (EAS) for our preliminary conclusion that the SHA decision and approval under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 43 U.S.C can be considered a categorical exclusion).