Enforcement against a company liquidator declared inadmissible

XX challenged enforcement requested by KÜ Ühtehoidev, now Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 9 korteriühistu, concerning the compulsory dissolution of OÜ Nipet-Näpet. XX had been appointed liquidator. The association argued that liquidation steps remained incomplete; XX contested enforcement against him personally. The supplemental judgment of 27 December 2012 supplied the descriptive section and reasons for the judgment of 29 June 2012. The court held that the company’s dissolution order was not an enforceable instrument against the liquidator. Statutory liquidation duties and judicial supervision did not make him personally an enforcement debtor. Enforcement against XX was declared inadmissible, with enforcement and litigation costs allocated to the association. The court did not determine the precise bailiff’s costs or their proper payer in this action. The request for future interest on recoverable litigation costs was left unexamined; it could be made when those costs were quantified. Confirmed subsequent development: on 20 November 2013 the circuit court upheld refusal to admit XX’s late application to quantify litigation costs. This did not reverse XX’s success in the main dispute, but allocating costs did not itself award the amount later requested. Entry into force and actual enforcement have not been separately reverified.