All meeting decisions declared void because the notice period was breached
Editorial summary
OÜ Rosehill obtained a declaration that all decisions of the association’s meeting of 30 May 2011 were void. The court applied the effective 15-day notice period rather than a shorter period in amendments not yet in force.
Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 3 korteriühistu · 80162521
OÜ Rosehill · 10972543
Participants and roles
- OÜ Rosehill — claimant and association member
- Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 3 korteriühistu — defendant, named KÜ Kangelaste 3 in the source
The dispute and the court’s decision
OÜ Rosehill challenged the decisions of KÜ Kangelaste 3’s meeting of 30 May 2011. The association is now named Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 3 korteriühistu. The company raised issues concerning accounts, the annual plan, repairs, tariffs and board changes, as well as convening defects. The association maintained that notice and documents had been delivered early and that amended articles permitted seven days’ notice.
The court found that the 2007 articles, requiring 15 days’ notice, applied when the meeting took place. The 2010 amendments entered into force only on registration on 18 January 2012. The proved email invitation of 23 May 2011 did not meet the applicable period, and the association failed to prove earlier delivery. On 16 September 2013 the court therefore declared all decisions of that meeting void. The alternative ordinary invalidation claim was dismissed because the voidness claim had succeeded; this did not preserve the decisions’ effect. Costs were allocated to the association.
Confirmed subsequent development concerns the separate quantification of costs: on 3 July 2014 the circuit court upheld the company’s award of 818.57 euros. That later order did not reconsider the merits of voidness. Payment, entry into force and any other subsequent decisions have not been separately reverified.
Outcome of this decision
All decisions of the meeting of 30 May 2011 were declared void. Alternative ordinary invalidation was not applied and costs fell on the association; the later costs amount was reviewed separately.