Parking project: meeting decisions not declared void

XX challenged KÜ Kerese 6’s decisions of 20 December 2016 approving a parking project, tree cutting and removal under the project, and entry and stopping restriction signs subject to association permission. XX argued that construction required every owner’s consent rather than a majority. The association relied on an earlier April parking decision. At the hearing XX clarified that the claim sought only nullity, meaning absence of legal effect from adoption. The court found no convening defects or other statutory grounds of nullity. A possible breach of co-owner consent rules did not itself make the decisions void. The court did not decide an invalidation claim for unlawfulness because no such claim was maintained as clarified. Nor did it find a breach of good faith. The claim was dismissed; XX bears both parties’ costs, to be quantified separately. On 20 April 2018 Tartu Ringkonnakohus subsequently upheld refusal concerning the December decisions. A new nullity claim concerning the decision of 13 April 2016 was left unexamined, and appeal costs were allocated to XX.