International journalist Annika Urm and the Chair of the Estonian Harju County Court, Liina Naaber-Kivisoo: What connects them?

Over the past decade a story has unfolded in Estonia that defies simple categorization. This is not merely a dispute between two individuals. It is a clash of perspectives: what is truth, what is justice, and whose voice matters at all. Chair judge of Harju County Court, Liina Naaber-Kivisoo, together with three colleagues (Vallo Kariler, Tarmo Tina and Olev Mihkelson) initiated criminal proceedings against International journalist Annika Urm under § 305—insulting a judge.

On one side is international journalist Annika Urm—a victim of sensationalist media headlines and someone who has sought to draw attention to the media’s influence, its mistakes, and its power to shape public reality.

On the other side stands a representative of the judicial system, Liina Naaber-Kivisoo (along with her colleagues: Vallo Kariler, Tarmo Tina and Olev Mihkelson) — current judge and chair judge of Harju County Court, whose role in this story has become increasingly central over time.

But this didn’t start off as a dispute.

Meelis Niinepuu’s opinion piece, published on Estonian National Broadcasting news has drawn serious attention to the fact that judges and lawyers often deal outside of law based on prior “agreements” (SLAPP – Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation)

https://www.err.ee/1609844430/meelis-niinepuu-kavaluse-ajastu-advokaadid-ja-kohtureform

The beginning: an experiment that went too far?

Years ago, Annika Urm started a journalistic experiment. The aim was reportedly to show how news titles — even in a satirical form— can influence a people’s lives.

It was an idea that at first glance sounded innocent.
To test, if mere words can shape reality.

But when the experiment ends, then who decides what remains?
Will the reader remember the context, or only the title?

Annika Urm explains the situation as such:

“For the past ten years, I have been portrayed in Estonian media as an untrustworthy, deceitful, and scandal-prone accountant. Honestly its difficult to even call it “the media” anymore — rather it has become a narrative machine, designed to make money off of people’s private lives, sensational headlines, and clicks, often at the expense of people’s reputations and lives. By creating this image, I have been robbed of my good name and the opportunity to do honest work in the field for which I am trained—I hold a master’s degree in financial management from EBS. But who would hire someone who the public perceives as an untrustworthy accountant?

Turning to the courts has not helped me, because in my view, the proceedings are systematically hindered by various security requirements. This raises the question of why a person should go to court at all when there is a Data Protection Inspectorate (AKI) in place to protect privacy and personal data, whose very purpose should be to safeguard people’s privacy. One’s profession is also part of one’s private life. At the same time, I have never been found guilty of such charges, nor have I even been on trial.

Why is it allowed to publish blatant falsehoods about me, on a massive and consistent scale? And why must an innocent person spend tens of thousands of euros—say, 100,000 euros—to protect their privacy? Even public figures have a private life, as the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has repeatedly affirmed. This inevitably raises the question: what is the point of the European Union and its directives if they are not followed in practice?

In the past ten years I have not received substantial help from any government agency. Therefore, I had no choice but to write my story and ask various websites to publish it. The headlines were left up to each publication to decide. The point of this experiment was to show what headlines do to people—especially those that could be considered exaggerated or even “criminal.”

Concerning the judges — Liina Naaber-Kivisoo, Vallo Kariler, Tarmo Tina and Olev Mihkelson —, then to them this journalistic experiment and satire was not acceptable. In my opinion it was perceived as heavy handed and unbearable criticism. As a result, a criminal case was initiated which, in my opinion, lacks the essential elements of a criminal offense: there is no intent, it is satire, there are no victims, and there are no beneficiaries.

In my opinion, criminal cases of this nature cannot be initiated without certain connections and influence. It is well known that Liina Naaber-Kivisoo and Prosecutor Paul Pikma have been long-time colleagues and have worked in the same building. There has also been talk of good relations between Liina Naaber-Kivisoo and former Chief Public Prosecutor Andres Parmas, as well as current Chief Public Prosecutor Astrid Asi. In my opinion, it cannot be ruled out that such connections have influenced the development of this criminal case.”

A crime is not committed just because someone does not like something or feels that they have been slighted. For a criminal offense, all the necessary elements must be present. If at least one of them is missing, then there is no criminal offense:

1. There is no act constituting an offense.
   § 45 of the Estonian Constitution protects freedom of speech. According to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, sharp criticism, hyperbole, provocation, and satire are also protected. Public officials, including judges and other public servants, must tolerate a higher level of criticism than ordinary citizens. If the disputed texts are satirical, critical, or experimental statements regarding the activities of public authorities, they do not constitute a criminal offense.
2. There is no criminal intent.
   The prerequisite for a crime is the intent to commit a prohibited act. If the purpose of the materials was to draw attention to potential problems, criticize the actions of public authorities, use satire, or tell a personal story, then there is no criminal intent. Without intent, a crime cannot be committed.
3. There is no illegality or criminal liability.
   If an expression is protected by freedom of speech and remains within the bounds of permissible criticism, it is not unlawful. Satire can be sharp, uncomfortable, and shocking, but that does not automatically make it a crime. Therefore, there is no punishable offense.

Conclusion: When it comes to criticism and satire falling within the scope of protection under § 45 of the Constitution, there is no criminal intent and no unlawful act. Therefore, the elements of a crime are not present in this case.

This is where the story begins to unfold.

When the narrative becomes reality

Over the years, Annika Urm has claimed that stories containing inaccuracies, factual errors, or unsubstantiated claims have been published about her in several major Estonian media outlets. According to her, she has sought to challenge and have them removed through the courts.

However, the courts have not always delivered the resolution she expected.

This raises the question:
if a person feels that false claims are being spread about them, how accessible is legal protection in reality?

And furthermore:
does everyone have equal opportunities within this system?

The tables turn: what happens when criticism is directed upward?

One of the more controversial facets of the story emerges when criticism isn’t directed at the media anymore, but at the judicial system itself.

Will the rules stay the same?

On the one hand judges— like all other people— have a right to protect their reputation.
On the other, a question arises:
Should people in positions of power be more tolerant of criticism?

The Limits of Criticism: The Role of the Judge and the Threshold of Tolerance

One of the lesser discussed but important principles of the rule of law is that those in power must tolerate more criticism than ordinary citizens. This stems not only from societal expectations but is also enshrined in international law and judicial practice, including the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights.

A judge is not merely a private citizen—he or she is a holder of public authority. This means that his or her actions, decisions, and even attitudes are, quite rightly, subject to greater scrutiny. Public scrutiny is not limited to neutral analysis; it is often sharp, emotional, and at times uncomfortable.

A similar pattern can be seen in politics, where verbal confrontation, criticism, and even offensive caricatures are part of everyday debate. Although boundaries must not be crossed—defamation and deliberate misinformation are not protected—it is accepted in a democratic society that criticism can also be painful and provocative.

Here emerges a question about limits and balance:
How much criticism must a judge tolerate without undermining the authority of the judiciary, and at what point does criticism become an attack that requires intervention?

On the one hand, the judicial system must maintain its credibility and integrity.
On the other hand, this cannot be achieved at the expense of stifling criticism.

It is precisely in this tense environment —between respect and accountability, freedom of speech and the protection of reputation— where we develop an understanding of how strong a democracy really is.

Some observers have raised the question of whether such disputes might resemble SLAPP lawsuits—lawsuits intended to stifle criticism.
Others view this simply as legitimate self-defense.

The SLAPP dimension is particularly relevant in this case because Annika Urm is an international journalist

An additional significant factor must be considered in this case: Annika Urm has been an international journalist for approximately 15 years, including having created and launched the women’s media outlet Buduaar.ee, which is now owned by TV3. She has operated her own media channels and web platforms, including, for example, www.i-marbella.com in Spain and news.annikaurm.com. Her work has involved interviewing international celebrities, reporting news, and creating media content.

This makes the silencing aspect of SLAPP lawsuits even more serious. Within the European legal framework, the silencing of journalists, public critics, and individuals who speak out on social issues is considered a particularly sensitive issue. It is precisely against such individuals that SLAPP lawsuits are most frequently used, as the goal is not merely to influence a single person, but to create a broader chilling effect on everyone else.

When criminal proceedings are brought against a journalist or public critic in connection with criticism, satire, the expression of opinion, or coverage of the actions of public authorities, the question arises as to whether the true purpose of the proceedings is the administration of justice or the silencing of a dissenting voice.

Achieving the goal set by the prosecutors (Liina Naaber-Kivisoo, Vallo Kariler, Tarmo Tina, and Olev Mihkelson) raises questions, as the disputed articles continue to appear on numerous websites and, to the best of our knowledge, no criminal or civil proceedings have been initiated against the owners of these sites or their potential authors. Allegedly, content critical of or considered offensive to judges appears on more than five different web platforms. This raises a legitimate question: what is the actual purpose of this specific criminal case, and what outcome is sought?

The present case also has a clear international and cross-border dimension, since the disputed publications were connected with various foreign websites and domains, and the proceedings have not fully established the actual technical publisher of the publications, the place of publication or the administration of the websites.

In addition, Annika Urm has for years acted as an international journalist and public commentator, and the disputed materials were connected with public criticism, satire, journalistic experiment and questions of freedom of expression, which gives the case possible characteristics of a cross-border SLAPP proceeding.

These circumstances create a pattern that in Europe is described as a criminal SLAPP phenomenon.

These circumstances form a pattern that is described in Europe as the “criminal SLAPP” phenomenon—the use of criminal proceedings to silence criticism or wear a person down.

In the present case, the following potential characteristics of a SLAPP lawsuit have been identified:

• the alleged victims are public officials or persons associated with the judicial system;
• The disputed materials concern a true story involving Annika Urm, which highlights a problems in our society as a whole, in our court systems, in our legal systems, and in data protection, and are presented in the form of a satirical and journalistic experiment; the authorship or technical form of publication does not alter the fact that the material falls within the realm of criticism, satire, and public debate; the headlines were chosen by the websites themselves;
• there are no financial losses or gains
• criminal proceedings are used instead of civil litigation;
• the person is subject to a warrant, compulsory appearance, arrest, or imprisonment;
• short deadlines and intense procedural pressure are used;
• The proceedings create psychological, health-related, and financial stress.

The question of the elements of a criminal offence is also important. If the disputed conduct constitutes criticism or satire protected by freedom of speech, there is no intent to commit a crime and no unlawful consequence; in such cases, the question arises as to whether the elements of a criminal offence are present at all. Article 45 of the Constitution protects freedom of speech, and according to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, public officials must tolerate a higher level of criticism than ordinary citizens.

When the most severe state measures—such as a warrant for arrest, the risk of arrest, or the threat of imprisonment—are used in such a situation, this can have a chilling effect not only on a single individual but also on other journalists, critics, and participants in public debate. This is known as the “chilling effect,” or a silencing effect on freedom of speech.

In the case of Annika Urm, the arrest warrant was issued based on false forensic reports and false factual claims. Moreover, Annika Urm’s defence attorney, the state-appointed lawyer Marika Suurpere (from the Sirje Must law firm), claims that false expert reports cannot be challenged and that experts cannot be summoned to testify in court. Is the state-appointed defence attorney protecting Annika Urm’s rights, or the opposite? (A separate in-depth story on this will be published on the Fonte.News channel)

Therefore, this case is not limited to Annika Urm alone. It raises a broader question: Can a journalist, critic, or public commentator in Estonia speak out without fear that state coercive measures will be used against them in a situation where the elements of a crime are debatable?

Satire and experimental content can be found on many different media channels—just Google it. Here are a few links from a Google search:

https://newschannel.news/korrumpeerunud-avalik-teenistuja-liina-naaber-kivisoo-eirab-suutuse-presumptsiooni-ja-tegutseb-pohiseaduse-vastaselt

https://lexjustus.com/kohtunik-liina-naaber-kivisoo-eirab-suutuse-presumptsiooni-ja-tegutseb-pohiseaduse-vastaselt

https://lexjustus.com/kohtunik-liina-naaber-kivisoo-eirab-suutuse-presumptsiooni-ja-tegutseb-pohiseaduse-vastaselt

An example of satire in Estonia, in the style of Delfi (an image from social media commented on by public figure, politician and opinion critic Varro Vooglaid), which, according to Liina Naaber-Kivisoo’s view, should have Trump and Putin storming the courthouse doors—but they don’t, because they don’t stoop to the level of those who spread such content. Great leaders are in a higher position than judges, so why doesn’t satire and caricature bother them.

The truth?
It depends on your point of view.

Who is responsible for words said?

One of the more complex layers in this story is the question of authorship.

When texts that are sharp, critical, or even offensive circulate in the public sphere, then:

Is the person whose name is associated with them responsible?
Or is it the person who actually wrote them?

When the evidence is inconclusive, the administration of justice becomes a very delicate balancing act.

Annika Urmi’s name has been linked to articles on several websites, but so far no convincing evidence has been presented to prove that she is the author of these stories. Even Urmi’s own assertion that she has no connection to these publications has not provided a clear resolution.

Under § 305¹ subsection 1 of the Estonian Penal Code, “insulting a court or judge in connection with the administration of justice” is punishable. According to the law, there must therefore exist a direct connection with the actual administration of justice in relation to a specific person.

Estonian Penal Code § 305¹

Judges Liina Naaber-Kivisoo, Vallo Kariler, Tarmo Tina and Olev Mihkelson have never substantively administered justice in relation to Annika Urm nor resolved Annika Urm’s civil claims, reputation-damage claims or applications for legal protection through a substantive court judgment.

The applications and civil cases submitted by Annika Urm were for years left unaccepted for proceedings or were not substantively reviewed. Therefore, the necessary direct connection required for the application of § 305¹ of the Estonian Penal Code to actual administration of justice exercised over Annika Urm is absent in the present case.

In addition, not every action by a judge, prosecutor or other procedural actor can automatically be regarded as administration of justice within the meaning of § 305¹ of the Estonian Penal Code. For example, the appointment of state legal aid takes place partly through the prosecutor’s office and pre-trial proceedings and does not belong exclusively to the competence of judicial administration of justice.

In addition, Annika Urm did not personally publish the disputed publications. They concerned Annika Urm’s personal story, experiences and criticism, which were published by various third parties and supporters on different independent websites. Furthermore, the actual technical publisher of the disputed publications, the administration of the websites and the exact place of publication have not been fully established in the proceedings.

Therefore, the essential statutory conditions required for the application of § 305¹ of the Estonian Penal Code are not fulfilled in the present case, because there is no direct connection between the criticism or satire addressed in the proceedings and actual administration of justice exercised over Annika Urm by those judges concerned.

This raises an important question of principle: accountability should be based on evidence, not assumptions. In the public sphere, situations may arise where third parties—whether well- meaning supporters or malicious actors—create content that gives the impression of a connection to someone who is not actually behind it. In such cases, it becomes particularly important to distinguish between appearance and proven fact.

In a state governed by the rule of law, guilt should be based on evidence—and only on proven evidence.
But public opinion is often formed before a verdict is reached.

Power, choice, and visibility

The issue is not limited to personal disputes. It also concerns how the system itself functions.

There has been public debate over the processes for appointing and promoting judges. When
decisions are not clear to everyone, the question inevitably arises:

who actually makes the decisions—and whose voice counts?

This is not just a matter for one country.
It is a central paradox of democracy:
the people should rule, but the system must function.

“It could be argued that Judge Liina Naaber-Kivisoo’s career has not suffered as a result of
these satirical or critical articles, given that she was recently promoted to Chief Judge of the
Harju County Court.“

A person against the system

The emotional core of this story isn’t found in documents or court rulings.
It lies in a feeling.

The feeling that you aren’t being heard.
The feeling that your words are dismissed as lies before they’re even properly considered.

The feeling that the system that’s supposed to protect you is on the other side.

But there are people on the other side, too.
Judges whose decisions are scrutinized, analyzed, and criticized.
People who must strike a balance between the law and public pressure.

Where does justice end?

Ultimately, this story isn’t just about Annika Urm or Liina Naaber-Kivisoo.

It’s a story about questions that have no easy answers:

Does freedom of speech apply even when it is uncomfortable?
Can criticism be sharp—without becoming punishable?
Do laws apply equally to everyone?
And shouldn’t justice not only be fair, but also appear to be fair?

Perhaps the answer does not lie in who is right.
Perhaps it lies in whether we are willing to ask these questions at all.

Because the strength of a society is not measured by how few conflicts there are.
It is measured by how we deal with them.

I am following this trial, and deep down I believe that despite Liina Naaber-Kivisoo’s impressive title –Chair judge of the Harju County Court – this will play no role in the Tartu Circuit Court’s decision; rather, the arrest warrant issued against Annika Urmi by Judge Marju Persidskaja, based on unfair and false forensic evidence, will be revoked, and the trial will proceed in a humane and just manner – this trial will be terminated, as there are no elements of a crime.

My public post on social media (Facebook):

“Veiko Huuse’s personal opinion, which is permitted under the Constitution and not subject to punishment; furthermore, there is freedom of speech and free will, which no law or human being can take away: “What is currently happening around Annika Urm is one of the most brutal attempts to silence a person. Annika Urm was the only Estonian who dared to carry out a public experiment two years ago and expose the SLAPP schemes—the suppression of major media outlets—in which judges, the prosecutor’s office, lawyers, and many invisible ‘decision makers’ are involved. Annika Urm’s actions allegedly offended the judges so much (the truth is always painful to hear) that now, in collaboration with five judges, the prosecutor’s office, and the media, a forceful silencing of Annika Urm is being orchestrated. No means are spared, including fabricated forensic reports, which a judge has used as grounds for arrest. Annika is accused of insulting a judge under Section 305, which, according to laws adopted by the European Commission, falls under SLAPP—a criminal offense when judges use it—and the Estonian government must ratify this by May 7, 2026, at the latest. However, the rush is so great that Annika Urm could be imprisoned for an indefinite period before May 7, 2026. The media and the public revel in watching someone get skinned alive, but in my opinion, the arrest is completely unlawful, and the judge who issued the warrant—who has himself faced corruption charges in the past—has broken the law. That’s just how messed up the Estonian legal system is. I’m working on a series of 20 or more articles based on this story, in which I’ll name everyone behind this witch hunt.” I’m waiting for the Circuit Court’s decision. Until then, I’ll keep an eye on the situation.”

We will keep the public and readers updated on the Annika Urm case.

Your support helps keep Fonte.News alive – a free and independent news channel that gives voice to the birth of a new Estonia – a NEW WORLD. Every contribution contributes to the spread of truth and a free society.