Panu Hörkkö, known as a celebrity paparazzi, denies the charges brought against him.
Panu Hörkkö at the door of the courtroom. Inka Soveri
Known as the paparazzi of Seiska Panu Hörkkö is accused of spreading information that violates private life.
According to the subpoena application, the suspected crime took place between February 13, 2019 and June 29, 2022. According to the prosecutor, Hörkkö wrote the articles published in the 7 days magazine, in which it was said that the man was dating an actress and the man’s criminal background was revealed in detail.
According to the prosecutor, the man’s full name has been stated in the publications and he has also been recognizable from the photos attached to the articles. The stories have been published both in the printed magazine and on its website.
The prosecutor demands a fine for Hörkö. Hörkkö denies the charge. According to him, it has been normal reporting.
The trial of the case started today, Wednesday. Be the first to report on the trial Evening News.
The victim demands compensation of 10,000 euros from Seiska’s publisher Aller Media and Hörkö for mental suffering, plus interest. According to the victim, Seiska’s coverage led to the failure of marriage plans.
According to the man, he constantly comes across situations where, when starting a new relationship, he has to face resistance because of Seiska’s stories from years ago.
“Raisins from a bun”
In the preliminary response submitted to the court, the accused considers that the article that was the subject of the news was about interactions in public places, which everyone has the right to follow and observe.
According to Hörkö, both the concerned owner and his spouse have worked in public professions.
Even though dating relationships are fundamentally part of private life, it is established in jurisprudence that the scope of private life shrinks as a result of a person’s own actions. According to Hörkö’s preliminary answer, the man and woman had appeared together in public places and on social media.
– [Miehelle] has gladly agreed to positive publicity alongside his spouse, but the coverage of his colorful criminal history has caused a request for an investigation, writes Hörkö’s preliminary response.
Denial is also often justified on other grounds, such as ambiguities related to the statute of limitations.