Puškini 20: provisions imposing different rates for individuals and legal entities set aside

A company that was a member of the association challenged an amendment to the articles and a management plan establishing different maintenance rates for individuals and legal entities.

OÜ Esteetilise Meditsiini Keskus Gratsija challenged decisions of the apartment association Puškini 20’s meeting of 1 April 2010. The company objected to changes to the articles of association and management plan that allowed maintenance charges to be calculated differently for individuals and legal entities. The claimant argued for payment in proportion to floor area and also said it had not been given the draft plan. The association justified the additional burden of business premises by reference to visitors, security, cleaning and maintenance of common areas. It argued that distributing additional costs equally would be unfair and that the necessary documents had been sent to the claimant. The annual plan applied different calculation figures to the two groups: 82,91 and 125,79 kroons per square metre. The court found that floor area was used for everyone, but the rates differed according to the category of owner and the use of the premises. Applying the rules then in force, it distinguished an alternative method of allocating particular types of costs from different maintenance rates for different groups. In the court’s view, the option to provide a different calculation method in the articles did not justify introducing such different rates. The court disagreed that the draft management plan had not been supplied at all, but noted that the allocation method had not been sent to the claimant. By its judgment of 29 September 2010, it granted the claim, setting aside the relevant part of the amendment to clause 4.2e of the articles and the part of the management plan providing for a special calculation of costs. This set aside specific provisions; it did not declare all the meeting’s decisions void. The association was ordered to bear the claimant’s costs as well as its own; the judgment did not determine their monetary amount.

Grant the claim. Set aside the part of the decision under agenda item 4 amending clause 4.2e of the articles that allowed different allocation rules for the two groups, and the part of the decision under agenda item 3 providing for a special calculation of management costs in the 2010 plan. The association is to bear the claimant’s costs and its own costs.