Kangelaste prospekt 12: circuit court reversed declaration that meeting decisions were void

The association appealed the declaration that meeting decisions were void. The circuit court gave decisive weight to applicant XX’s representative having read the materials beforehand and attended the meeting.

The circuit court reversed the declaration that meeting decisions were void and dismissed XX’s application; each party was left to bear its own costs. Applicant XX sought a declaration that decisions of the apartment association Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12 meeting of 12 March 2020 were void, meaning without legal effect from adoption. XX relied on failure to send the invitation and materials to an email address known to the association, absence of detailed access arrangements and overly short time for viewing documents. The association objected that the representative initially supplied no power of attorney but later received the documents and participated in the meeting. Viru Maakohus granted the application and imposed costs on the association. The association appealed. The circuit court accepted that it should have sent the invitation and papers to the known address on its own initiative. Nullity, however, required a substantial defect in meeting preparation that prevented the participant from learning of the meeting and preparing to vote. Here the applicant knew the meeting’s time and place. The representative received the necessary papers beforehand through another owner represented, read them, participated and stated objections. The court therefore did not regard failure to send the applicant a separate letter as substantially limiting those opportunities. Refusal to show documents to a person without authority also did not establish the alleged ground of nullity. Failure to explain the need for a power of attorney and allowing one hour for inspection did not change that finding. On 2 July 2021, the circuit court allowed the association’s appeal, reversed the nullity declaration and dismissed the application. Each participant bears its own costs at both levels: the association could have avoided the dispute by sending materials properly. The court thus found a breach of the duty to send documents but not the substantial impact needed for the outcome sought.

Set aside the Viru Maakohus ruling of 11.05.2021 insofar as it granted the application, declared the meeting decisions of 12.03.2020 void and addressed association costs. Issue a new ruling dismissing the application. Allow the appeal; each participant bears its own first-instance and circuit court costs.