Skip to decisions
Žuk — ANTON и JELENA

Legal archive: reviews of court practice concerning Narva apartment associations

This section contains analytical reviews and editorial summaries of publicly available court decisions concerning relations between apartment owners and apartment associations in Narva. The information has been prepared by the Žuk Kinnisvara team for informational purposes.

We explain complex legal acts in plain language. Our archive is continually updated.

We plan to add reviews of decisions of the Supreme Court of Estonia (Riigikohus) on important issues concerning relations between apartment owners and apartment associations.

Before making important legal decisions, always check the official status and full case text in the state register (Riigi Teataja / e-Toimik).

Subjects and subtopics

A subject describes the dispute; it does not establish a violation.

Additional parameters

Reset all
2-17-15411

Narva linn, Partisani tn 3a korteriühistu · 80152273

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayInstalments and payment schedules

Editorial summary

The court approved instalments under the association and XX’s agreement: nine monthly payments. Proceedings were terminated.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-15411/3Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Partisani 3a: court approved nine payments under a debt agreement

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Partisani 3a · 80152273

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — apartment association; defendant XX — party to the agreement; association’s representative XX

Editorial summary

The court approved instalments under the association and XX’s agreement: nine monthly payments. Proceedings were terminated.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court approved KÜ Partisani 3a’s agreement with defendant XX to repay debt and costs and terminated the case. The parties agreed nine monthly payments. The association had filed a debt claim. The ruling does not set out detailed original grounds for charges or the defendant’s objections: the parties presented an agreed way to end the dispute. The terms cover principal, accrued interest and 195* euros in procedural costs. The court reviewed the agreement and documents, found no conflict with the law or good morals and approved the terms. If payments are delayed by more than two months, the association may immediately seek compulsory recovery through a bailiff. Each participant bears other costs not specified in the agreement. The act contains no information on performance of the schedule. Approval establishes the parties’ obligations but does not confirm receipt of money by the association.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement to repay debt, interest and 195* euros in costs in nine monthly payments. If payments are more than two months late, the association may seek immediate compulsory recovery. Terminate proceedings; leave unspecified costs to the participants.
2-17-103173

Narva linn, Viru tn 20 korteriühistu · 80352766

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

Editorial summary

With no response, the court awarded the association debt and 50 euros in costs by default. The previously reimbursed portion of the fee was not awarded again.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-103173/12Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Viru 20: default award of 394,98 euros in debt and remaining fee costs

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Viru 20 Narva · 80352766

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — apartment association; defendant XX — owner; association’s representative XX

Editorial summary

With no response, the court awarded the association debt and 50 euros in costs by default. The previously reimbursed portion of the fee was not awarded again.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court granted KÜ Viru 20 Narva’s claim against owner XX by default, awarding the principal claim and 50 euros in costs. The defendant sent no response after public service of the documents. The association initially sought a payment order. After transfer to Viru Maakohus, it sought payment of the debt. According to the claim, the defendant owned an apartment and was a member of the association maintaining the building. The text contains no detailed objections from the defendant. The court stated that the ruling admitting the claim was served through Ametlikud Teadaanded on 12 October 2017. The defendant was given 14 days to respond and warned of a default judgment. No response arrived and the court applied the consequences of that non-participation. The short act contains no detailed analysis of charges. Of the 100 euro fee paid by the association, 50 euros had already been reimbursed outside court. The court awarded the remaining 50 euros as justified costs. The judgment was declared immediately enforceable and was also ordered served publicly because no service address or authorised recipient was known. Actual payment of the award and the date of publication of the judgment extract have not been checked.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the claim by default. Award the principal claim and 50 euros in costs against XX. The judgment is immediately enforceable; serve it publicly through Ametlikud Teadaanded, with service deemed complete 15 days after publication of the extract.
2-17-1621

Korteriühistu TALLINNA MNT 36

Rights in real propertyOwnership and register entriesApartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsPayment accounting and set-off

Editorial summary

The court distinguished current payments to the association from the enforcement debt.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-1621/54Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 36: challenging an auction and allocating payments

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Korteriühistu TALLINNA MNT 36 ·

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — former owner XX; first defendant — bailiff XX; second defendant — purchaser XX; third defendant — Korteriühistu TALLINNA MNT 36

Editorial summary

The court distinguished current payments to the association from the enforcement debt.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The former owner XX sought invalidation of an apartment auction held to enforce a debt judgment in favour of Korteriühistu TALLINNA MNT 36, confirmation of ownership and return of the property. The defendants were bailiff XX, purchaser XX and the association. The claimant relied on direct payments to the association, lack of notice and incorrect valuation. The court dismissed the claim. The initial valuation had not been challenged in time and the court did not entertain that objection in this action. Correspondence showed that the claimant knew of the debt and the instalment conditions requiring payment to the bailiff, but had not complied. Payments to the association without specifying an obligation could be allocated to current invoices rather than the judgment debt. The court found that the enforcement claim remained unpaid when the auction ended; a later transfer did not alter that fact. The court found notice of the auction proper and no material breach warranting invalidation. Once the judgment becomes final, the prohibition on disposal entered for the claimant must be removed. Costs were placed on the claimant, with their amount and reimbursement to be decided separately. This judgment does not decide the association’s original debt claim afresh.

Outcome of this decision

Invalidation of the auction and the related claims were refused; the disposal restriction is removed after finality, with costs quantified separately.
2-17-652

Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 4 korteriühistu · 80228651

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

Latest prepared act · · № 2-17-652/17

Editorial summary

The court concluded bankruptcy of the property left after XX’s death and approved the trustee’s report. The association participated as a creditor and, according to the report, received only part of its recognised claim.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 1 · Unprepared stages: 1
· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-652/17Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Estate bankruptcy concluded: association’s claim paid in part

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Korteriühistu Daumani 4 · 80228651

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant XX; debtor – XX’s estate; trustee XX; apartment association – creditor

Editorial summary

The court concluded bankruptcy of the property left after XX’s death and approved the trustee’s report. The association participated as a creditor and, according to the report, received only part of its recognised claim.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court approved the trustee’s final report and concluded the bankruptcy of the estate: the property left after XX’s death. The apartment association Daumani 4 participated as a creditor, rather than the debtor. According to the report, its recognised claim was satisfied in part and a portion remained unpaid. This concludes the procedure after asset distribution; it is not a new judgment awarding the association the entire debt. No objections to the final report were filed. The court found no infringement of the debtor’s or creditors’ rights that would prevent approval and considered the report compliant with the law. The trustee was released from duties, and publication of a notice of conclusion in Ametlikud Teadaanded was ordered. The debtor or a creditor that had objected to the final report could appeal the ruling within 15 days of receipt.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the final report, conclude the estate bankruptcy and release the trustee. According to the report, the association’s claim was satisfied in part and a portion remained unpaid. Order publication of a notice of conclusion.
Not prepared yet

· Case 2-17-652 · Viru Maakohus · First instance

2-17-110027

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 42 korteriühistu · 80054903

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsObligations of multiple owners

Editorial summary

The court ended the case after the association waived its claim because the debt had been paid. It awarded 137,50 euros* in costs jointly and severally against two defendants.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-110027/11Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Association waived its claim after debt payment; court awarded part of the costs

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Tallinna mnt 42 Korteriühistu · 80054903

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant – apartment association; two defendants XX – joint owners; association representative XX

Editorial summary

The court ended the case after the association waived its claim because the debt had been paid. It awarded 137,50 euros* in costs jointly and severally against two defendants.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court accepted the apartment association Tallinna mnt 42’s waiver of its claim against two defendants XX and terminated proceedings. The waiver followed payment of the claimed debt after the association went to court. The defendants did not object. The court found the waiver permissible and explained that the same claim against the same defendants on the same grounds could not be brought again. As payment after filing caused the waiver, litigation costs were imposed on the defendants. They are jointly and severally liable: the association may seek the awarded sum from both together or either one within the overall total. The court awarded the association 137,50 euros*, half the fee paid for the payment order application and transition to ordinary civil proceedings. The other costs claimed were not considered necessary and justified. In particular, the association participated without a contractual representative, so expenses for drafting the claim, consultation and signing the agreement were not accepted; bank charges and separate payment order costs were also not awarded. The court fee refund question was left for a separate ruling after this ruling becomes final. The ruling itself does not confirm payment of the awarded litigation costs.

Outcome of this decision

Terminate proceedings following waiver of the claim. Award 137,50 euros* in litigation costs jointly and severally against the defendants; the court fee refund is to be decided separately.
2-17-110028

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 42 korteriühistu · 80054903

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

Editorial summary

The court refused to accept the association’s debt claim for proceedings: a proper application, evidence and additional fee were not received in time.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-110028/3Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Association failed to remedy defects in its claim: court refused acceptance

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Tallinna mnt 42 Korteriühistu · 80054903

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant – apartment association; defendant – XX; association representative XX

Editorial summary

The court refused to accept the association’s debt claim for proceedings: a proper application, evidence and additional fee were not received in time.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court refused to accept for proceedings the debt claim by the apartment association Tallinna mnt 42 because it had not complied with the requirement to remedy defects. The ruling states that, after payment order proceedings ended, the papers were referred to Viru Maakohus to continue as an ordinary civil claim. The court required a proper statement of claim and payment of an additional court fee within 14 days of service, warning of the consequences of non-compliance. The association’s representative received the requirement, but the defects were not remedied in time. The court noted that no proper application or evidence of the grounds for the claim had been submitted and the additional fee was unpaid. The claim was therefore not taken up for hearing. The court did not decide whether a debt existed or its amount. Following refusal, the application and attachments are returned to the claimant and are not sent to the defendant; under the rule cited, the application is deemed not filed and the claim never pending before the court. Litigation costs were left with the association. The ruling could be appealed to Tartu Ringkonnakohus through Viru Maakohus within 15 days of service.

Outcome of this decision

Refuse to accept the claim for proceedings because defects were unremedied and the additional fee unpaid; leave costs with the association. The debt was not examined on its merits.
2-17-7866

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 15 korteriühistu · 80218285

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

Editorial summary

The court approved an agreement for the association to pay the electricity network company 365 euros by 31 December 2017. Proceedings were terminated.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-7866/13Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kerese 15: court approved payment of 365 euros to an electricity network company

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Osaühing VKG ELEKTRIVÕRGUD · KERESE 15 NARVA KORTERIÜHISTU · 10855041 · 80218285

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — electricity network company; defendant — apartment association; parties’ representatives XX

Editorial summary

The court approved an agreement for the association to pay the electricity network company 365 euros by 31 December 2017. Proceedings were terminated.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court approved an agreement between VKG ELEKTRIVÕRGUD and the apartment association KERESE 15 NARVA and terminated the debt case. The association undertook to pay the company 365 euros no later than 31 December 2017. The parties reached the agreement at the hearing. The court checked that the agreement was compatible with the law and good morals, did not harm public or participants’ interests and could be performed. Each party bears its own court costs; no reimbursement of one party’s costs by the other was ordered. The claimant requested a refund of half the state fee. The court left this for a separate ruling after entry into force, so this ruling does not show that the fee was actually refunded. The court also explained that after termination the same claim against the same defendant on the same grounds cannot be brought again. The parties agreed a shortened appeal period of three days from service of the ruling. The act establishes the association’s agreed obligation but does not confirm actual payment of the 365 euros.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement: the association pays VKG ELEKTRIVÕRGUD 365 euros no later than 31 December 2017. Terminate proceedings. Each party bears its own costs; refund of the fee will be decided in a separate ruling.
2-17-100639

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 23 korteriühistu · 80171052

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

Editorial summary

The court approved payment of debt and costs to the association within the agreed period; it did not cancel one defendant’s separate obligation concerning state legal aid.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-100639/33Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kangelaste 23: debt settlement approved; obligation to reimburse state legal aid retained

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Korteriühistu Kangelaste 23 · 80171052

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – Korteriühistu Kangelaste 23; Defendants – XX and XX; One defendant’s representative XX under state legal aid

Editorial summary

The court approved payment of debt and costs to the association within the agreed period; it did not cancel one defendant’s separate obligation concerning state legal aid.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court approved the settlement between Korteriühistu Kangelaste 23 and two defendants XX, terminating the debt and late-payment interest case. The defendants must pay the association the agreed arrears and 157,50 euros in litigation costs within the period set by the agreement. The parties signed the agreement on 20 September and submitted it to the court the following day. The ruling contains no detailed initial calculations or objections. The court considered the terms permissible and enforceable, approved them and explained the consequences of termination. If the obligations are not performed, the association may apply to a bailiff. Each participant bears its own remaining costs. The association was awarded a refund from the state budget of half the court fee, 137,50 euros. This refund is distinct from the costs the defendants undertook to pay under the agreement. Separately, one defendant requested release from reimbursing state legal aid. Aid had previously been granted on terms requiring reimbursement of 75% of its cost in one payment within six months after the lawyer’s fee was determined. The court retained that obligation, leaving the monetary amount for a separate ruling. The ruling records the agreed payments and the end of the dispute. It does not establish actual payment of the debt or costs or refund of the court fee.

Outcome of this decision

Defendants XX are to pay the association the agreed debt and 157,50 euros in costs within the agreed period. Approve the settlement and terminate the case; each bears its own remaining costs. Refund the association 137,50 euros in court fees from the state budget. One defendant’s obligation to reimburse state legal aid remains on the previous terms; the amount will be determined separately.
2-17-115809

Narva linn, Partisani tn 3a korteriühistu · 80152273

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

Editorial summary

After the debtor’s objection in payment order proceedings, the association did not submit a proper claim or pay the additional fee.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-115809/3Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Partisani 3a: debt claim not accepted for proceedings after defects were not remedied

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Partisani 3a · 80152273

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — KÜ Partisani 3a; Person named as debtor — XX

Editorial summary

After the debtor’s objection in payment order proceedings, the association did not submit a proper claim or pay the additional fee.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court refused to accept for proceedings KÜ Partisani 3a’s debt claim against XX. After transfer from payment order proceedings, the association did not formulate its demand under the rules for a statement of claim or pay the additional fee in time. The debt was not determined on its merits in this ruling. The association initially sought a payment order. The debtor objected, and Pärnu Maakohus transferred the claim to Viru Maakohus. That court required the claim and grounds to be stated, supporting documents supplied and an additional fee paid within 14 days of service of its request. The association received it on 27 September 2017 but did not respond by 11 October. The court stated that payment order materials alone did not allow admission of the claim: evidence of debt and documents proving representative authority were missing. In addition, only 45 euros had been paid instead of the required 175 euro fee; the additional 130 euros did not arrive. The court therefore refused to accept for proceedings the application. It explained that upon such refusal, the returned application is regarded as never filed and the claim as never pending. Costs were left to the association; there were no sums reimbursable to other participants. The ruling neither declares no debt nor orders its payment.

Outcome of this decision

Refuse to accept for proceedings the association’s debt application. Leave all court costs to the association; there are no costs reimbursable to other participants.
2-17-11996

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 10 korteriühistu · 80346215

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

Editorial summary

The association waived its claim after payment of the debt; the court separately awarded 112,50 euros in costs against the two defendants jointly and severally.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-11996/9Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kerese 10: case terminated after debt payment, with half the fee awarded against defendants

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Korteriühistu Kerese 10 · 80346215

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — Korteriühistu Kerese 10; Defendants — XX and XX

Editorial summary

The association waived its claim after payment of the debt; the court separately awarded 112,50 euros in costs against the two defendants jointly and severally.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court accepted Korteriühistu Kerese 10’s waiver of its claim against XX and XX and terminated the debt case. The association was awarded 112,50 euros in court costs against the two defendants jointly and severally. This is a common amount recoverable from either, but the full amount may not be collected twice. On 26 September 2017, the association told the court that the defendants had paid the debt and requested termination. The court accepted the waiver as admissible and explained that the same claim against the same defendants on the same grounds cannot be brought again. The ruling does not state the initial debt amount or detailed objections from the defendants. Because the claim was satisfied after filing, the court allocated costs to the defendants. The association had paid a 225 euro state fee on filing. The court awarded only half, 112,50 euros, against the defendants because the association could request the other half back from the budget. No such application existed when the ruling was made, and the court did not order that refund. The court refused legal costs. Although a services invoice was attached to the claim, there were no documents signed and filed by a representative. Nor did the court see that the representative’s work had enabled timely and proper compliance with court requests. The debt is not awarded again by this ruling. Actual payment of the newly awarded costs is not confirmed.

Outcome of this decision

Accept the waiver and terminate proceedings. Award the association 112,50 euros in fees against the two defendants XX jointly and severally. No legal costs were awarded; this act does not order refund of the other half of the fee from the budget.
2-17-11991

Narva linn, Uusküla tn 9 korteriühistu · 80180269

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

Editorial summary

The owner did not respond to the served claim; the court awarded debt, interest and 253 euros in costs by default.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-11991/5Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Uusküla 9: utility debt, interest and costs awarded by default

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Uusküla 9 · 80180269

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — KÜ Uusküla 9; Defendant — owner XX

Editorial summary

The owner did not respond to the served claim; the court awarded debt, interest and 253 euros in costs by default.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court granted KÜ Uusküla 9’s claim against owner XX by default. The association was awarded principal and accrued interest, and separately a 175 euro state fee and 78 euros in legal costs. The association alleged that the defendant had not made mandatory monthly payments for building maintenance. It sought the debt, accrued interest and court costs. According to the act, the claim documents and court ruling were served personally on the defendant, confirmed by a signature. The court required a written response and warned of a possible default judgment. No response or objections arrived in time. The court found the claim legally justified and applied the default procedure rules. Under this procedure, the claimant’s factual assertions are deemed admitted due to the absence of a timely response. Costs were also allocated to the defendant: the court awarded 253 euros for the fee and legal assistance. The judgment was declared immediately enforceable without security. It does not confirm that the association actually received the money.

Outcome of this decision

Award the association principal, accrued interest, a 175 euro state fee and 78 euros in legal costs against XX. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security.
2-17-9833

Narva linn, Turu tn 3 korteriühistu · 80228912

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

Editorial summary

The defendant did not respond to the served claim; the court awarded the association debt, accrued interest and costs by default.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-9833/5Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Nartur-3: utility debt, interest and court costs awarded by default

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Nartur-3 · 80228912

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — KÜ Nartur-3; Defendant — owner XX; Association’s representative XX

Editorial summary

The defendant did not respond to the served claim; the court awarded the association debt, accrued interest and costs by default.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court granted KÜ Nartur-3’s claim against owner XX by default. The association was awarded utility debt and accrued late-payment interest. Court costs were awarded separately: a 175 euro state fee and 78 euros in legal costs, totalling 253 euros. The association alleged that the defendant was obliged to pay monthly for building maintenance but had made no payments. It sought those amounts and costs, and requested a default judgment if no response arrived. The first mailing of the claim documents was returned. The court sent the documents to another established address and deemed them served on 22 August 2017 by placement in a mailbox. The defendant was required to submit a written response and warned of a possible default judgment. No response or objections were submitted in time. The court found the claim legally justified. Under the default procedure rules applied, the facts stated by the claimant are deemed admitted if there is no timely response. The judgment was declared immediately enforceable without security. This permits immediate enforcement but does not confirm payment of the money awarded.

Outcome of this decision

Award the association debt, accrued interest and 253 euros in court costs against XX, including a 175 euro fee and 78 euros in legal costs. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security.