Common-expense debt upheld, unproved indirect-heating charge excluded

KÜ Puškini tn 22 claimed 20,039.44 kroons in maintenance and utility charges from non-residential owner OÜ Kotkas&KO. On 22 December 2009 the county court awarded 16,939.44 kroons, excluding a separate waste-collection charge. Both parties appealed: the association sought the full debt, while the company disputed common expenses, repair-loan payments and heating charges despite its own gas heating. The circuit court dismissed the association’s appeal. A separate 3100-kroon waste charge was unjustified because the company proved its own collection contract and non-use of the association’s container. This did not exempt it from general-tariff expenses for cleaning and removing waste from common grounds. Separate entrances and non-use of common rooms likewise did not remove the duty to contribute to common-property expenses, including the relevant loan payments. The company’s appeal succeeded in part: the association had not proved the basis and calculation method for the indirect-heating charge claimed. Board decisions to recalculate and impose a 20% charge were insufficient by themselves. Heating charges of 4116.37 kroons were excluded, leaving an award of 12,823.07 kroons, or 819.54 euros. This concerned proof of the particular charge, rather than a general exemption from all heating costs for independently heated premises. County-court costs were allocated 64% to the company and 36% to the association; appeal costs were allocated 76% and 24% respectively. The company later relied on payment and set-off in a separate action challenging enforcement of this amount. That action concerned a different claim and did not constitute a fresh assessment of the debt in this judgment. Entry into force and actual enforcement of this judgment have not been separately reverified.