The suit concerned a comment Moora wrote on social media referring to corruption and which the plaintiff said was defamatory.

On April 14, 2023, Twitter user "ebamugavusvalitsus" posted a diagram displaying the names of individuals who had made the largest donations to the Isamaa party, and among these, Parvel Pruunsild stood out with the largest sum of €500,000.

On that same date, Erik Moora commented: "Estonia's biggest political corruption," under the same post. In addition, he replied to one user's question in the comments about what that alleged corruption consisted of, stating that "firstly, well, benefits do come along too."

On July 11 of the same year, Pruunsild filed a lawsuit against Moora with the first-tier Harju County Court, seeking a retraction of defamation and compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

The county court on Thursday ruled that it would dismiss the claim and also ordered Pruunsild to pay Moora's legal costs, which had amounted to €5,833.80.

In his complaint, Pruunsild pointed out that in the context of the diagram and from Moora's comments on it, the latter attributes to him the commission of one of the largest acts of corruption in Estonian history, yet this is an inappropriate value judgment or, alternatively, an incorrect factual assertion.

Pruunsild also noted in the claim that Moora alleged he had received benefits from Isamaa in exchange for financial support, which is false and damages the plaintiff's reputation.

Pruunsild further stated that the published information had incurred on him moral harm, since Moora is a public figure and held to be authoritative — he is a former editor-in-chief of investigative weekly Eesti Ekspress, and presents himself also as a political scientist.

Moora in his defense explained to the court that the context of publishing the data does not allow for the inference that Pruunsild should be equated with the Isamaa party. The judgment "Estonia's biggest political corruption," according to Moora, referred to the diagram depicting Isamaa's supporters, and cannot be attributed to Pruunsild.

Moora also noted that he nowhere stated that Pruunsild supported Isamaa in order to gain benefits, and that a benefit does not only mean material gain or a corruption crime.

Court: Access to top politicians may be considered a benefit

The court justified the decision to dismiss the claim by stating that in its view it is not feasible to deduce the alleged statement from the diagram in conjunction with the comment.

"The defendant's comment was indeed published under the diagram containing the plaintiff's name, but from the collection of data, it is not possible to conclude that the plaintiff had, in the defendant's view, committed an unlawful or reprehensible act. The defendant's comment in question is very general, not filled with specific acts or accusations," the ruling states.

To sum up, the court is of the opinion that in the disputed source of information, Moora did not make the claim that Pruunsild had committed the greatest act of corruption in Estonian history.

The judgment points out that Pruunsild is a member of Isamaa and did donate to the party the €500,000 indicated in the diagram.

"The plaintiff has been an initiator and supporter of the second pension pillar reform, he has supported its implementation /.../ Also, the Isamaa party's election pledge and condition when forming the government was that people should be able to withdraw their money from the second pension pillar in the future. That is, the party at the political level was implementing, among other things, the plaintiff's views," the court document states.

Pruunsild did not contest Moora's assertion that the businessman communicates with many politicians, including those of Isamaa.

"Thus the defendant's claim that the plaintiff has access to the top politicians of Isamaa is a true one. The plaintiff has had influence on national family policy. The plaintiff has supported the state's pro-birth policy. For example, in 2024, the plaintiff donated a total of one million euros to three parties, including Isamaa, since these had supported the adoption of Isamaa's family benefits bill," the court pointed out.

These circumstances when put together confirm, in the court's opinion, that the donations made to Isamaa gave Pruunsild, as the party's largest donor, the opportunity to realize his views at the national level, via the party. The case materials do not demonstrate that Pruunsild had set specific demands as a condition for making donations to Isamaa, or that he had demanded a quid pro quo from the party for his donations, the court found.

"At the same time, there is no reason to doubt that the party takes into account the views of its largest donor when shaping its policy and making political decisions. The court finds that direct access to the party's top politicians, the opportunity to present his views to them, which the party may then implement at the national level, can be considered a benefit which the plaintiff receives in return for donations made to Isamaa," the judgment states.

The court summarized that, as a result of the above, the disputed factual claim was true, and publishing a claim corresponding to reality is not an unlawful act.

The Harju County Court judgment can be appealed within 30 days.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!