Written voting on an association’s report and management plan

XX challenged written resolutions on the association’s report and management plan. The first-instance dismissal was ultimately restored by Riigikohus, while costs were allocated differently across the instances.

XX sought to have resolutions of Narva linn, Madise tn 1, Madise tn 3, Malmi tn 3, Malmi tn 5 korteriühistu, recorded on 28.04.2021, declared void or invalidated. They approved the 2020 report and 2021 management and works plan by written voting without a meeting. XX alleged missing board signatures on the report, deficiencies in the plan and failure to meet a unanimity requirement under the articles. The first-instance court found that the documents had been circulated in advance and XX could participate. It treated missing signatures as a formal defect that had not materially misrepresented the association’s finances in this case. It considered the plan sufficiently informative. It rejected an interpretation requiring every member to participate and found a quorum. The court also considered later resolutions with the same content. It dismissed the application on its merits rather than leaving it unexamined, and imposed costs on XX. On 20 December 2024, Tartu Ringkonnakohus reversed the dismissal and declared the challenged points void. On 14 May 2025, however, Riigikohus restored the first-instance dismissal of the application. First-instance costs were left with the association, while appeal and Supreme Court costs were imposed on XX. The original allocation of all costs to XX was therefore not restored.

The first-instance dismissal was reversed by Tartu Ringkonnakohus on 20 December 2024 and restored by Riigikohus on 14 May 2025. First-instance costs were allocated to the association, and appeal and Supreme Court costs to XX. The original allocation of all costs was not restored.