>That's weird. This particular court case is him vs Romania, not him vs his employer. The earlier cases, in Romania, would have been him vs the employer. The s

>That's weird. This particular court case is him vs Romania, not him vs his employer. The earlier cases, in Romania, would have been him vs the employer. The suit is in the European Court of Human Rights. He was claiming that Romania violated his right to confidential correspondence by having civil law that allowed his company to read private messages. He lost, therefore Romania's laws are fine, and thus the employer is still in the right.