The lawsuit centered on an article published in the print edition of Eesti Ekspress and on the newspaper's website in which Laine wrote about documents made public during court proceedings involving Pruunsild and then-Tartu Deputy Mayor Priit Humal (Isamaa), who has since returned to the same position.

Prosecutors charged Humal with violating restrictions on official acts and Pruunsild with aiding and abetting the same offense. The charges were related to the sale of the former exhibition building of the Estonian National Museum to the Sakala student corporation, of which Pruunsild is a member. Both men were ultimately acquitted by Tartu District Court and prosecutors did not appeal the ruling.

However, the hearings also examined emails and phone calls between Pruunsild, a major donor to Isamaa and various party politicians. Those communications formed the basis of Laine's article.

In his lawsuit against Delfi Meedia and Laine, Pruunsild sought an order requiring them to stop what he alleged was the unlawful processing of his personal data by removing every sentence in the article that referred to him.

According to Pruunsild's attorneys, sworn advocates Paul Keres and Andri Rohtla, the article contained 44 such instances, ranging from a recommendation to change the headline of an opinion piece by Isamaa member Tõnis Palts to suggestions that one Isamaa member be turned into a "star politician" while another be moved into the "middle zone."

The plaintiffs argued that while the public may have a legitimate interest in the facts and legal proceedings of the criminal case, it has no legitimate interest in the processing of personal data contained in private emails, messages and phone calls that were unrelated to the charges or the criminal proceedings.

They also argued that the processing of the data violated journalistic ethics because, in their view, Laine had not reported on the matter impartially.

Pruunsild's side asked the court to order reimbursement of €28,626.52, including VAT, in legal costs. The plaintiff also sought interest on that amount.

In addition, the businessman sought €417,384 in damages, to be paid jointly by the defendants, for the alleged unlawful processing of his personal data.

In their response, Delfi Meedia's attorneys, sworn advocates Mari Männiko and Annegret Reisi, argued that journalistic reporting on matters of public interest must be protected and that the right to privacy does not automatically outweigh freedom of the press.

They argued that the article did not disproportionately harm the plaintiff's interests, noting that Pruunsild had repeatedly declined to respond to the journalist's requests for comment.

"If the plaintiff had perceived a threat, he could have presented his views to the journalist."

Delfi Meedia's representatives also argued that the plaintiff had to prove that all 44 quotations contained his personal data. They maintained that 11 of the quotations contained no reference to Pruunsild whatsoever, a position the court agreed with.

Laine's attorney, sworn advocate Tarvo Lindma, further argued that not all of the conversations described in the article belonged to Pruunsild's private life, as they were directly related to the shaping of Estonian politics.

The court said the parties did not dispute that Pruunsild had been acquitted in the criminal case described in the article or that he was an Isamaa supporter and rank-and-file member. Rather, the dispute concerned whether the quotations involving Pruunsild contained his personal data and whether that data had been processed unlawfully.

The plaintiff also amended his claims during the proceedings. While Pruunsild initially sought an order requiring both Laine and Eesti Ekspress to stop processing his personal data and remove the quotations, he later pursued those claims only against Eesti Ekspress.

The court rejected the request to remove the data, finding that Delfi Meedia and Laine had published it lawfully. As a result, there was also no basis for awarding non-pecuniary damages.

The court added that even if Pruunsild's claims had been well-founded, the amount of damages sought was excessive.

"The plaintiff has artificially inflated the claim by treating the publication of each sentence as a separate violation and then further increasing the claim by treating both the sending of an email and the publication of its contents as separate violations."

According to the court, these circumstances indicate that "the plaintiff's aim is to silence the press, a goal that the court cannot support in these proceedings."

Harju District Court dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety and ordered the plaintiff to bear the legal costs.

Pruunsild to appeal

Laine told ERR that he clearly agrees with the court's ruling because, in his view as well, the lawsuit was intended to silence the press.

"Pruunsild tried to prevent both me and the publication from reporting factually accurate information that was discussed during public court hearings. Everyone had access to that information because court proceedings in Estonia are public," the journalist said.

Because the ruling has not yet taken legal effect, Laine said he did not wish to comment further. He added, however: "Unfortunately, it has already become a trend that lawsuits against investigative journalism are becoming increasingly Kafkaesque. Over the past couple of years, I've already been involved in several disputes where we're not arguing about factual claims at all, but about whether journalists are allowed to write about these matters in the first place."

The ruling may be appealed to the Tallinn Circuit Court within 30 days of its delivery. Pruunsild told ERR that he had not yet reviewed the judgment but intended to appeal it.

Pruunsild has previously been involved in legal disputes with journalist Erik Moora and with the European Union's high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, former Prime Minister Kaja Kallas. Both cases concerned alleged defamation.

The dispute involving Moora stemmed from comments he posted on social media beneath a post about Parvel Pruunsild's donations to Isamaa. Moora wrote: "Estonia's biggest case of political corruption." In response to another user's question, referring to the donations, he also wrote: "For one thing, there are benefits that come with them."

The case involving Kallas began in 2023 and is based on comments she made to a Delfi journalist during a government press conference on July 6 of that year regarding Pruunsild's political activities. The proceedings are still ongoing and no date has been announced for the next hearing or a ruling.

Pruunsild has also been in court with Finance Minister Jürgen Ligi over remarks linking him to the 2021 pension reform that allowed participants to withdraw money from the mandatory second pension pillar. Ligi and Pruunsild reached a settlement in 2025. In a joint statement to the press, the parties said that political debate can at times give rise to ambiguity.

In addition, Pruunsild sued Siim Kallas in 2020 after Kallas said in an interview with Õhtuleht that, following the 2019 Riigikogu elections, an unnamed political strategist had suggested that the Reform Party should negotiate with businessmen Margus Linnamäe and Pruunsild so they would instruct Isamaa to join a coalition. Pruunsild withdrew that lawsuit shortly afterward.

Parvel Pruunsild is the majority owner of Bigbank, a member and major sponsor of the Isamaa political party.

--

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