The 51-year-old man had been in the investment consulting and asset management company in the case of computer stations from colleagues, so-called Keylogger attached, to enter into possession of Logins and passwords. He had, he said, abuses in the company reveal.
The Argument is not moved. The district court sentenced the man earned per year 600'000 Swiss francs, and more, in the spring of 2012 due to unauthorized intrusion into a data processing system, and imposed a conditional fine of 40 daily rates of 1000 francs.
The court room at the Zurich upper court left the man in the spring of 2013, but with a white vest. Reason: In the indictment there is no reference to a tortious conduct against the company, which occurred as a private plaintiff found himself embarrassed. Because of the impeachment principle was violated, not joined the Supreme court on the charges.
not quite Scot-free the financial expert came. He touches on the privacy rights of colleagues in the civil vorwerfbarer way. The Supreme court imposed upon him the court costs. In addition, he is the concerned company should replace the process cost of a good 60'000 Swiss francs.
Three times in front of Federal court
The man for the first Time turned to the Federal court . And got right. The financial professional should be able to impose the costs will not speak, decided by the Federal court. In order to be heard had been violated. The Supreme court caught up in a second decision, the Failure to change that, but nothing.
The man went for the second Time before the Federal court. And got right. The colleagues had made no criminal complaint, why the man no procedure costs, but no compensation could be imposed on the company.
Now the man demanded a process of compensation of about 100'000 Swiss francs, in satisfaction of 5000 Swiss francs and the replacement for the lost income of 1.2 million Swiss francs. However, the Supreme court denied him in the third decision, the satisfaction and the income replacement and cut the compensation payments to 35'000 francs.
The waiver by the end
For the third Time, the man went before the Federal court. And got only partially right. The Supreme court had decided correctly, not merely dealt with the fundamental question of whether the man is entitled to an income replacement.
For the fourth Time, the Supreme court bent over the case, replied to the question of principle, and refused the man continues to be a satisfaction, and income replacement.
According to the Supreme court, the man has refused to apply a fourth Time to the Federal Supreme court. (Tages-Anzeiger)
Created: 08.01.2019, 07:22 PM