KÜ Puškini 20: owner status alone did not justify different rates

The meeting introduced different cost calculations for individual and corporate owners. The court found owner status alone insufficient and upheld invalidation of those parts of the decision.

OÜ Esteetilise Meditsiini Keskus Gratsija challenged the meeting decision of 1 April 2010 concerning the management plan and different cost allocation for individual and corporate owners. The plan used rates of 82.91 kroons/m² and 125.79 kroons/m². The association argued that corporate owners consumed more services. The county court invalidated the parts amending clause 4.2.e of the articles and introducing different management-cost calculations for the two groups. The circuit court upheld that result. Departure from an area-based method was possible, but the articles had to specify which costs were allocated differently and how. Owner status alone was insufficient. The wording used the type of owner, rather than objectively measured consumption. Corporate ownership did not itself prove greater service use. The court also rejected the allegation that the judgment exceeded the claim. The claimant clarified its purpose after initially unavailable documents were obtained, and the issues were discussed with the parties. Inadequate clarification at the preliminary stage had not produced an incorrect outcome here. The appeal was dismissed and costs left with the association. Only specified parts of the decision were invalidated, not the whole management plan without distinction.

The county court judgment of 29 September 2010 remained unchanged and the appeal was dismissed. Invalidation of the parts amending clause 4.2.e and introducing different cost calculations for the owner groups was maintained. Costs were left with KÜ Puškini 20.