Security costs: decision charging three owners the full amount is void
Editorial summary
XX challenged a decision charging three owners the entire annual security costs in equal shares. The court declared it void because of the procedure for its adoption, leaving the earlier unchallenged cost-sharing decision outside the dispute decided.
Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 9 korteriühistu · 80289285
Participants and roles
- XX — claimant, association member
- Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 9 korteriühistu — defendant
The dispute and the court’s decision
XX sought a declaration of nullity or an order setting aside decision no. 1 of the general meeting of Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 9 korteriühistu of 21 March 2013. The meeting charged three owners the entire 2012 patrol-service costs of 3,033* euros in equal shares. XX had not attended and objected to changed obligations without a corresponding agenda item. The association viewed allocation of costs as part of discussing the annual report.
The court rejected the objection that the claim was late: XX subsequently approved the representative’s acts and the claim was treated as originally filed on 11 June 2013.
The court classified patrol services as necessary common-property management costs. The articles provided for allocation by floor area and did not permit charging the full sum equally to selected owners. A different allocation required amending the articles, which was absent from the meeting agenda. Decision no. 1 was declared void, meaning no legal effect from the outset; the alternative claim was left unexamined because the primary claim succeeded.
The court separately stated that the earlier decision of 12 April 2012 to divide costs 50/50 — half to the association and half to the three owners — was unchallenged and binding on XX. That decision was not set aside in this judgment. The association bears litigation costs and was also ordered to pay a court fee of 250* euros to the state.
Outcome of this decision
Decision no. 1 of 21 March 2013 charging three owners the security costs of 3,033* euros equally was declared void. The earlier unchallenged 50/50 allocation decision was not set aside; the association bears litigation costs and a court fee of 250* euros payable to the state.