News
LEADELL Pilv attorney-at-law Anneli Aab successfully represented the client in the so-called media dispute
On 28.05.2021, Harju County Court partially granted Kristi Loigo’s lawsuit against Eesti Ekspress.
The dispute was based on the Eesti Ekspress (EE) article “TV show about helping the poor made producer Kristi Nilov a wealthy person” on 25.04.2018 and about incorrect factual statements and inappropriate values published in the article by the newspaper and Krister Kivi. Both parties disputed whether, in the contested part, EE’s disclosure constituted factual statements or values and then whether they were incorrect and inappropriate values.
The court agreed with K. Loigo that EE made incorrect factual statements in an article about Kristi Loigo (formerly Nilov) – a) (Kristi Nilov’s) giant private house in Rae Parish, which includes a two-storey doghouse, and (b) Kristi Nilov has failed to pay the remuneration of two former co-workers).
The court also agreed with the claimant that EE published inappropriate values towards the claimant – (a) Kristi Nilov is the biggest beneficiary of ‘‘Kodutunne’’(a TV-show), (b) Kristi Nilov is ‘the poison that kills everyone around her’ and (c) Kristi Nilov is ‘the worst person I know’. Firstly, the Court explained that the statement ‘Kristi Nilov is the biggest beneficiary of ‘‘Kodutunne’’ published by EE is derogatory to the claimant because it gives the impression that the claimant has become wealthy at the expense of donations from the show ‘‘Kodutunne’’. That statement also characterises the claimant as an extremely negative character. A reasonable person gets the impression that the plaintiff has obtained something through the show dishonestly at the expense of charity and is therefore wealthy.
Secondly, the Court also found that the publication of the allegations characterizing Kristi Loigo created an extremely negative image of her and was dishonouring. The court agreed that describing the plaintiff as “the poison that kills everyone around her” and “the worst person I know” paints an extremely negative image of her and thereby damages her reputation. The claimant is portrayed as a very cold, reckless, and bad person, but the applicant has not given a reason for such inappropriate and abusive values. EE had no reasonable justification for disparaging and insulting the claimant in public in that manner, but nevertheless EE painted a picture to a reader of Kristi Loigo as an extremely unpleasant person. These can be said are therefore defamatory values. According to the court, the purpose of EE’s disclosure of such statements was to deliberately mislead the EE reader with a view to create a negative emotion towards the claimant. Although a public figure has to have a higher tolerance duty, the public figure does not have to endure incorrect statements or unreasonably offensive assessments about her.
The court ordered the EE to overturn incorrect factual statements, awarded 2 000 euros in non-pecuniary compensation for damage caused by inappropriate values, and ordered EE to obtain the proceeds of the infringement. As regards the amount of compensation for non-material damage, the court also took into account the manner in which EE interviewed the claimant — the interview and the article appeared immediately after the death of Ms Lahtein, the former host of “Kodutunne”. EE approached the claimant with a wish to make a story specifically about the claimant and S. Lahtein – but the actual article did not focus on that. EE’s infringement is extensive because EE has published incorrect factual statements and values about the applicant in an article on what was publicly available in the paper and in the online publication and which has been seen by a large number of people.
The decision has not entered into force and can be appealed to the district court within 30 days.
Categories
Subscribe to Leadell's Newsletter
