KÜ Puškini tn 12: dismissal of the challenge to charges and payment decisions was upheld

The owner challenged charges and meeting decisions. Dismissal was upheld because the decisions were challenged late, an agreement covered the earlier period and later calculation errors were not specified.

XX challenged heating, service, room-use, advertising and waste charges imposed by KÜ Puškini tn 12, as well as general meeting decisions from 2003, 2005 and 2008. XX alleged lack of meeting notice, an overstated calculation area and the absence of a written room-use agreement. The circuit court upheld dismissal on distinct grounds. Under the three-month rule applied in this case, time ran from learning of a decision, not necessarily receiving the minutes. The court found that XX should have known of the decisions by the time a notarised debt agreement was made. The challenge was late, so the substantive allegations about meeting notice were not examined. Charges for the period covered by the notarised agreement were not set aside because the agreement remained valid and had not been terminated. Later payments were assessed against the meeting decisions that remained in force. Lack of a written agreement did not exclude a room-use charge: the court found an oral lease. For heating and services it considered an invoice recalculated using the actual area. XX had not identified the later months or charges left uncorrected. The appeal was dismissed and costs in both courts left with XX. Whether good faith could prevent enforcement of a meeting decision was not assessed, as no such claim had been made.

XX’s appeal was dismissed and the county court judgment of 5 August 2011 remained unchanged. The claims to set aside meeting decisions and calculations were unsuccessful. Costs in both courts remained with XX.