Kraavi 12: non-pecuniary damage claim refused admission after defects remained unremedied

After partial reversal of the earlier refusal, the court allowed time to clarify the non-pecuniary demand, but the papers were not corrected.

The court again refused to accept XX’s non-pecuniary claim against the apartment association Kraavi tn 12: after an extension, the claimant did not clarify the amount and circumstances of the harm. Claimant XX sought pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages totalling 7 668 euros from Narva linn, Kraavi tn 12 korteriühistu. He linked the demand to damage to the apartment during repairs and disagreed with the earlier dismissal. The court initially refused to accept the new claim, citing a final judgment between the same parties. The circuit court set that refusal aside only as regards non-pecuniary damage and remitted acceptance of that part for reconsideration. The procedural ruling therefore did not reopen the pecuniary part. After remittal, Viru Maakohus required a clear statement of the specifically non-pecuniary amount, the association’s particular acts or omissions, the nature of the harm and the evidence. The total demand did not show which portion concerned non-pecuniary compensation. The court also explained the special conditions for such compensation where an item is destroyed or lost and warned of the consequences of not remedying defects. At the representative’s request, the deadline was extended to 1 April 2019, but no clarifications arrived. The court refused acceptance and ordered return of the application and attachments after the ruling becomes final. Costs were left with the claimant; none were reimbursable. This ruling addressed defects in the application, rather than establishing on the merits that no non-pecuniary harm existed.

Refuse to accept the claim because defects were not remedied; return the application and attachments after the ruling becomes final. The claimant bears costs.