KÜ Tallinna 17 and OÜ Elpaste: part of the meeting and basement dispute was remitted

The claims concerned meeting decisions and basement use. Dismissal concerning the 2005 decision was upheld; the claims concerning the 2009 decisions were remitted for a fresh hearing.

OÜ Elpaste challenged KÜ Tallinna 17’s decision of 23 April 2005, the repeat general meeting decision of 18 October 2009 and the owners’ decision of 28 December 2009. Two proceedings were joined. The county court dismissed all claims after disregarding Russian-language documents without Estonian translations. The circuit court upheld dismissal concerning the 2005 decision: the representative handling that claim had received sufficient warnings about translations and the consequences of failing to provide them. Dismissal concerning the 2009 decisions was set aside and that part returned from the preliminary stage. After joinder, documents had been sent to only one of the claimant’s two representatives; the other representative’s participation and the translation requirements for those claims had not been properly addressed. The fresh proceedings must clarify notice, agenda, quorum and the nature of the meetings. The dispute included demands that the claimant vacate basement rooms for common use. The county court must decide whether a majority association decision was sufficient or an agreement between co-owners was required. A meeting decision is not itself an enforcement instrument for changing possession and use of common property. The circuit court did not determine the validity of the 2009 decisions or the later result. Costs remained for the county court on the merits.

The appeal was allowed in part. The judgment of 11 May 2012 was set aside concerning the decisions of 18 October and 28 December 2009, with that part remitted from the preliminary stage. Dismissal of the claim concerning the decision of 23 April 2005 remained unchanged. The county court was to allocate costs.