SLAPP—Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation—is not merely a standard legal dispute. It is a systemic phenomenon where the judicial system is weaponized not to seek justice, but to intimidate, financially drain, and ultimately silence critics, journalists, and free speech activists. Estonia has been shaken by a case where judges Marju Persidskaja, Head of the Harju County Court Liina Naaber-Kivisoo, judge Vallo Kariler, judge Tarmo Tina, judge Olev Mihkelson, prosecutor Paul Pikma, and state-funded defense attorney (RÕA) Maarika Suurpere (from the Sirje Must Law Office) want to silence international journalist Annika Urm. Read more…
Across Europe, over 1,300 SLAPP cases have been documented, and the number grows annually. While public perception usually associates these gag lawsuits with exorbitant civil damage claims, a far more dangerous trend has begun to take root: Criminal SLAPP, where criticism is transformed into a “crime” with the assistance of the state.
The EU SLAPP Directive: A Cure or a Paper Tiger?
According to the proceedings of the Constitutional Committee of the Estonian Parliament (Riigikogu), the Act Amending the Code of Civil Procedure and the Law of Obligations Act (transposition of the anti-SLAPP directive) was passed on June 20, 2026. Will this directive tame power-hungry and suspectedly corrupt judges?
In 2024, the European Union’s anti-SLAPP directive (Directive (EU) 2024/1069) entered into force. Member states, including the Estonian Parliament (Riigikogu), were required to transpose it into national law by June 2026. The directive’s primary defense mechanisms include:
- Early Dismissal: Rapid identification and termination of manifestly unfounded and malicious lawsuits.
- Financial Sanctions: Penalizing those who launch abusive lawsuits and providing compensation for damages to the victims.
The Main Loopholes: The directive predominantly focuses on civil and commercial matters. This leaves the door wide open for criminal proceedings, which plaintiffs or authorities can abuse to suppress critical voices. In Estonia, a glaring example of this vulnerability is § 305 of the Penal Code (insulting a judge), which can easily be weaponized to criminalize sharp criticism and serve as a tool for institutional self-defense.
Patterns at Home and Abroad: When Criticism Becomes a “Crime”
The most tragic and famous international example is Maltese investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, who faced dozens of malicious civil and criminal lawsuits before her assassination—a classic manifestation of SLAPP pressure. In Poland and Hungary, documented cases show state structures systematically using legal proceedings against critics.
Estonia is also exhibiting alarming patterns where formally correct procedural decisions mask the underlying intent to silence individuals. Beyond precedents that induced self-censorship in media outlets (e.g., Delfi AS v. Estonia) or rulings where journalists risk their personal assets, Estonia has entered a phase where criminal law is deployed as a silencing mechanism.
The Case of Annika Urm: The Peak of Criminal SLAPP in Estonia
One of the most striking examples is the case of international journalist and entrepreneur Annika Urm. This case features a criminal proceeding initiated over the alleged insult of a judge, escalating to the point where the journalist was declared nationally wanted.
In this case, the ‘threads’ lead to friendships and connections among former long-time colleagues; for example, judge Liina Naaber-Kivisoo and prosecutor Paul Pikma worked together for years as colleagues at the Jõhvi Courthouse and, according to ’insider tips’, remain very good friends to this day. There are also ‘tips’ that Liina Naaber-Kivisoo is on very good terms with former Prosecutor General Andres Parmas (who became a judge under Liina Naaber-Kivisoo’s supervision) and current Prosecutor General Astrid Asi. Allegedly, Astrid Asi helped Liina Naaber-Kivisoo become the Chairman of the Harju County Court, as Liina Naaber-Kivisoo failed in the free elections—a large portion of her colleagues did not trust her. In addition, Maarika Suurpere, the attorney defending Annika Urm, is on good terms with prosecutor Paul Pikma and judge Marju Persidskaja (who issued the arrest warrant for Annika Urm).
Strong signs point to a protective circle (closing of ranks) within the judicial system, and as a result of this group-wide activity, there are strong indications of deportation-like practices.
This case embodies the classic hallmarks of a criminal SLAPP:
- Abuse of Power Dynamics: Judges, who under European legal tradition must tolerate more criticism and insults than ordinary citizens because they exercise public power, step forward as “victims”.
- Disproportionate Measures: Based on an insult charge, drastic procedural measures are implemented, including public wanted notices and severe psychological pressure.
- The Illusion of Legality: On the surface, every step appears formally correct. In reality, however, a selective narrative is constructed to destroy the individual’s reputation and deny them a fair opportunity for a substantive defense.
From Cancellation to “Systemic Deportation”: A New Level of Modern Silencing
While the public has previously spoken of such cases—be it Annika Urm, Eneke Roots, or other similar instances—primarily as the social “cancellation” of a person (cancel culture), the tightening of procedural measures forces a re-evaluation of this concept. Cancellation typically refers to public condemnation and isolation. However, in a situation where the unrestricted power of judges and the state’s coercive apparatus are brought into play, we are no longer talking merely about reputational pressure, but about the physical, legal, and geographical elimination of a person from their home country and everyday living environment.
When journalists and entrepreneurs operating across national borders are declared wanted, deprived of their liberty, or forcibly pushed away from their country under the pretext of insult charges, this process takes on a much darker shade. In its essence, such targeted use of coercive measures begins to resemble historical criminal practices—the systemic deportation and forced labor of people, implemented during the World Wars and still used in repressive regimes today. While in the past, dissidents were loaded into cattle cars, today it is done through “formally correct” court judgments, wanted notices, and the freezing of bank accounts. Yet the result remains the same: a person is violently torn from their life, family, and society, turning the courtroom from a place of justice into a repressive instrument of expulsion and destruction.
Potential Defense Tactics Against SLAPPs
How can an individual or a journalist protect themselves when targeted by a systemic and malicious legal assault?
1. International Publicity and Exposure
SLAPPs thrive in darkness and procedural isolation. The best antidote is transparency. In cases like Annika Urm’s, the primary defense lies in broad exposure through international channels and media freedom organizations. When a local system attempts to quietly “cancel” a critic, international scrutiny forces state authorities to weigh their steps much more carefully.
2. Contesting Proceedings Based on the Primacy of EU Law
Even if local legislation criminalizes the defaming of an official or a judge, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is unyielding: public figures and authorities must tolerate uncomfortable, sharp, and even offensive criticism. The defense tactic must argue at every stage of the proceedings that the local criminal prosecution contradicts the core principles of European Union law and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Freedom of Expression).
3. Challenging Forensic and Expert Evidence (Counter-Expertise)
In criminal SLAPPs, selective or biased expert evaluations (e.g., assessing an individual’s medical or psychological state) are often used to create a veneer of objectivity and justify severe restrictions. To counter this, the defense must immediately involve independent and international experts to dismantle conclusions that have been “tailored” to suit the prosecution’s goals.
4. Aggressive Counter-Litigation and State Liability
When legal measures are flagrantly disproportionate, the defense should pivot toward demanding damages from the state for malicious and unfounded prosecution. This effectively shifts the legal focus away from the accused and back onto the state apparatus’s abuse of power.
5. Seeking Political Asylum in Another Country
When the home country’s judicial system and state structures are completely politicized or systematically biased, and an individual faces a real threat of imprisonment or human rights violations merely for exercising their freedom of expression, seeking asylum in a democratic foreign country can become the ultimate and most drastic defense measure.
- International Protection Against Persecution: When state authorities, the prosecution, and the courts abuse criminal proceedings for the purpose of silencing (e.g., unjustified wanted notices and criminal SLAPP proceedings), the individual has the right to request international protection under the Geneva Convention, citing political or institutional persecution.
- Suspension of Proceedings and Extraditions: Filing an asylum application in another country generally suspends extradition proceedings initiated by the home country (including the execution of Interpol or European Arrest Warrants) until the host country has independently reviewed the circumstances. This provides essential legal breathing room and security.
- Setting a Precedent: A democratic foreign country’s decision to grant asylum to a journalist or activist also serves as a strong international condemnation of the home country’s judicial system, officially proving that a fair trial and the protection of human rights are not guaranteed in the country of origin.
Conclusion: Estonia’s Crossroad
A society of free people does not collapse all at once; it erodes gradually when asking questions becomes punishable, and the courtroom transforms into an instrument of fear and revenge.
Estonia currently stands on a dangerous precipice. To prevent our justice system from turning into an apparatus that protects power rather than the law, the Ministry of Justice must ensure that anti-SLAPP protection does not remain a hollow formality restricted to civil matters. Protection must be substantively extended to criminal proceedings, and draconian, outdated provisions in the Penal Code must be critically reviewed and dismantled.
Author: Veiko Huuse
Read more:
