Skip to decisions
Žuk — ANTON и JELENA
Back to decisions

Access to documents refused: court found the request insufficiently specific and the interest unproven

Viru Maakohus · First instance

Documents and informationInspection and copies of documentsReporting and review of expenditureContracts, loans and bank documentsExplanations of charges and payments

Access to documents refused: court found the request insufficiently specific and the interest unproven

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

OÜ ROBURINK · KÜ Linda 1 · 10611746 · 80180424

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant OÜ ROBURINK — former premises owner and association member.; Defendant KÜ Linda 1 — holder of the documents requested.

How it started · editorial summary

OÜ ROBURINK did not obtain access to the apartment association Linda 1’s documents. The court dismissed the claim, citing insufficient substantiation of interest and an imprecise document list.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The company ROBURINK sought meeting minutes and documents on the association’s repairs, contracts, invoices and expenditure over several years. It considered that the accounts did not explain the work actually done and charges made, and that the board obstructed scrutiny. The company relied on a member’s right to information and the right to inspect documents where a justified interest exists. The association objected that the company had sold its premises during the proceedings and ceased to be a member. It had no unpaid debt to the association. The association requested that the claim be left without examination or dismissed, arguing that the interest had not been substantiated and the document list was too general. The court found that ROBURINK was still a member when it filed the claim, but had ceased to be one through the sale by the time of the hearing. The court also assessed independent grounds for access to documents. It distinguished inspection from transfer of possession: the provision cited by the claimant did not give a right to receive the documents. From the explanation about copies, the court concluded that transfer of the documents was in fact sought. The court also found the company’s specific interest unproven: it had not shown which documents concerned its legal relationships or reported preparation of another claim for which they were needed. The general list did not allow the documents to be produced to be identified precisely or a possible judgment to be enforced. The claim was dismissed in full. ROBURINK was left to bear the association’s costs as well as its own. The judgment did not determine a specific costs amount.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss OÜ ROBURINK’s claim against the apartment association Linda 1 for access to documents. Order ROBURINK to bear the association’s costs and leave the company’s own costs to it.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Dismiss in full Osaühing ROBURINK’s claim against Korteriühistu Linda 1 to inspect documents.