A. Puškini tn 13: request to require Narva to continue state supervision of partitions refused

Owner XX challenged the end of supervision over the partitions’ condition and sought a binding direction to the association; the city relied on inspections carried out.

Applicant XX sought an order requiring Narva linn to continue state supervision and issue a direction to the apartment association Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 to repair partitions. XX considered the structures dangerous and argued that visual inspections were insufficient to check the risk. The city was the respondent, and the association participated as a third party. The city reported two inspections: the second found no wall collapse or falling blocks and no change since the first. An expert survey was recommended to clarify the technical condition, which the owner or association could commission. The city considered coercive intervention by the supervisory authority unnecessary. The court first rejected the applicant’s request to amend the complaint because the letter ending supervision was not a suitable object for a claim to annul an administrative act. It also refused the city’s request to leave the complaint unexamined: there were no obvious grounds, and the dispute needed consideration on the merits. On the merits, the court found that the city had begun supervision, taken steps and assessed the findings. The materials did not establish sufficient public interest or a need for further coercive measures; the applicant could protect rights through relations with the association and civil proceedings. State supervision does not replace owners’ duties to maintain the building. The judgment of 20 January 2022 dismissed the demand to compel continued supervision. Each participant was left to bear its own costs. This is not an engineering finding that the structures are unconditionally safe and does not decide a separate private-law dispute over repair or association liability. The applicant’s requested 600 euros in costs was not awarded.

Refuse applicant XX’s request to amend the complaint and Narva linn’s request to leave it unexamined. Dismiss the demand to require the city to continue supervision and issue a direction to the association. Each participant bears its own costs.