Repeat meeting: decisions void because of notice and plan defects

XX challenged points 2, 5 and 6 of Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 20 korteriühistu’s meeting decisions of 26 August 2024: hot-water and electricity tariffs, maintenance and repair-fund charges, and a seven-month management plan. The association argued that documents had been sent, tariffs discussed and the applicant knew the repeat-meeting rules. The court identified a decisive defect: the invitation omitted the mandatory statement that the repeat meeting would be competent regardless of attendance. Knowledge of the law or articles and XX’s previous board membership did not replace that information. It helps an owner decide whether personal attendance is necessary. The court declared all decisions of the repeat meeting void, meaning ineffective from the outset. For points 2 and 6, the court also found that the draft alternatives lacked forecast quantities and costs of utility resources. Timely sending of an incomplete draft did not ensure informed participation. However, the same previously sent draft did not have to be sent again solely with the new invitation. Costs were allocated to the association. Of XX’s requested EUR 1,080, the court allowed EUR 730: EUR 50 in fees and EUR 680 in legal assistance, reducing excessive document-preparation time. No interest on costs was awarded because XX had not requested it.