The case has press freedom implications.

The first-tier Harju County Court rejected Eesti 200 MP Tarmo Tamm's claim that Äripäev had made false claims about his timber business interests.

The court concluded that Äripäev had not committed a violation nor published factual claims which would require retraction.

"In conclusion, and based on the foregoing, the plaintiff's claim for the retraction of published factual statements, compensation for non-material damage, and the awarding of interest on damages must be dismissed," Harju County Court ruled.

Tamm said the court's reasoning could be interpreted as suggesting that journalism need not be accountable for anything. This would, he argued, mean that journalism should therefore neither be taken as truth nor as trustworthy.
"I must admit that I am unpleasantly surprised by the court's decision, especially from the perspective of societal development," Tamm said. "Not to mention that reaching this decision took nearly three years."

Tamm noted that the court did not need to resolve a dispute but to provide a legal assessment of whether making false claims in journalism has become the "new norm", and whether a board member is automatically responsible for all activities of a company. He acknowledged that the court answered these questions in the affirmative, even as he considers such positions entirely wrong.

In March of this year, the Harju County Court dismissed Tamm's claim and ordered him to bear legal costs. The court found that Äripäev covered a matter of public interest and had not made the claim the logging work in question was illegal, and had referred only to an investigation and suspicion. Äripäev also, the court found, did not state that Tamm was a criminal suspect; instead using terms like "under investigation." Describing him as the "driving force behind the floating sauna," a reported feature of the development in question, was deemed a value judgment, not a verifiable fact, and so was not refutable in court.

"The word 'driving force' cannot be assessed on a yes/no scale; there is no definition of who qualifies as a 'driving force' and who does not — it is a perceptual, subjective category, which also depends on the life experiences of the journalist making the assessment, and can only be justified, but not proven," the county court's ruling states.

The court also found that the media had a legitimate interest in reporting on the activities of a public figure such as Tamm, an MP; that the articles were based on official data, and that when the plaintiff made remarks about the articles, Äripäev corrected them, giving Tamm the opportunity to present his views, and also publishing information that the original proceedings being reported on had been terminated.

Tamm had filed the suit in August 2023, seeking a retraction of what he claimed were incorrect factual statements and compensation for non-material damages, along with interest.

The complaint related to five articles published in Äripäev between May and June of the same year; in his view, the articles disparaged him by attempting to create an image of him as a dishonest and untrustworthy politician and businessperson.

The Äripäev articles contained implications of a conflict of interest also, in that Tamm was the chair of the Riigikogu environmental committee while at the same time a timber industrialist; Äripäev wrote Tamm was under investigation for illegal logging, and that under Tamm's leadership, a floating sauna had been erected in Käsmu harbor, within the restriction zone of Lahemaa National Park, which the Environmental Board was demanding be removed.

Tamm has the option to file an appeal with the second-tier circuit court within 30 days; he told ERR that he will likely do so.

"That would probably be reasonable. This path was undertaken with the aim of making the media landscape a bit better, but at the moment it seems the result has been the opposite," Tamm told ERR.

--

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