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
2-17-10856

Narva linn, Uusküla tn 1 korteriühistu · 80175825

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

Editorial summary

After personal service of the ruling accepting the claim, the defendant did not respond; the court gave a default judgment.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-10856/4Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Uusküla 1: court awarded debt and late-payment interest by default after no response

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Uusküla tn 1 KÜ ·

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – Uusküla tn 1 KÜ; Defendant – owner XX; Association’s contractual representative XX

Editorial summary

After personal service of the ruling accepting the claim, the defendant did not respond; the court gave a default judgment.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court granted the claim by the apartment association Uusküla tn 1 against owner XX by default. The association was awarded principal and accrued late-payment interest against the defendant, plus 295 euros in litigation costs. The judgment was declared immediately enforceable. The association applied to the court on 14 July 2017. It alleged that the defendant owned an apartment and owed the association the stated arrears and late-payment interest. The brief judgment contains no further details of how the debt arose or substantive objections from the defendant. The court accepted the claim on 20 July. The ruling accepting it was served personally on the defendant against signature on 28 July 2017. The court allowed 14 days from service to respond and warned that failure to respond could result in a default judgment. The defendant did not respond in time. The court applied the default judgment rules and granted the claim. Litigation costs comprise a 250-euro court fee and 45 euros in contractual representative’s costs. The court found them justified and fully reimbursable. No separate continuing late-payment interest was awarded by this judgment. Immediate enforceability does not confirm actual payment of the debt or costs.

Outcome of this decision

Award the association debt, accrued late-payment interest and 295 euros in costs against XX. The judgment is immediately enforceable.
2-17-9661

Narva linn, Oru tn 17 korteriühistu · 80145965

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

Editorial summary

The defendant did not respond within the time limit; the court awarded the association debt, late-payment interest and costs by default.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-9661/3Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Oru 17: debt, accrued and continuing late-payment interest awarded by default

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva Oru 17 KÜ · 80145965

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – Narva Oru 17 KÜ; Defendant – owner XX; Association’s contractual representative XX

Editorial summary

The defendant did not respond within the time limit; the court awarded the association debt, late-payment interest and costs by default.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court granted the claim by the apartment association Narva Oru 17 against owner XX by default. It awarded debt for building maintenance and utilities, accrued late-payment interest and continuing late-payment interest of 0,07% per day on the principal until payment. The association alleged that the defendant had not paid the invoices in full. It claimed the debt and interest for late payment. The court accepted the claim and deemed the corresponding ruling served by placement in the mailbox on 27 July 2017. It allowed 14 days to respond and warned the defendant of a possible default judgment. No response arrived in time. The court granted the claim under the default judgment rules and declared the judgment immediately enforceable. The defendant was also ordered to pay 525 euros in litigation costs: a 225-euro court fee and 300 euros in contractual representative’s costs. The court found them justified and fully reimbursable. The judgment confirms the awards, rather than actual payment.

Outcome of this decision

Award debt, accrued late-payment interest and continuing late-payment interest of 0,07% per day on the principal until payment. Award 525 euros in costs. The judgment is immediately enforceable.
2-17-10788

Narva linn, Mõisa tn 7 korteriühistu · 80218948

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

Editorial summary

The association sought payment of arrears; after no response arrived, the court granted the claim by default.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-10788/3Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Mõisa 7: debt of 1484,04 euros and litigation costs awarded by default

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KORTERIÜHISTU MÕISA 7 NARVA · 80218948

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – KORTERIÜHISTU MÕISA 7 NARVA; Defendant – owner XX; Association’s contractual representative XX

Editorial summary

The association sought payment of arrears; after no response arrived, the court granted the claim by default.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court granted the claim by the apartment association MÕISA 7 NARVA against owner XX by default. The defendant was ordered to pay arrears for building maintenance and utilities, plus 245 euros in litigation costs. The judgment was declared immediately enforceable. The association alleged that the defendant owned an apartment and was an association member but failed to pay the invoiced charges. No separate demand for late-payment interest is stated in this judgment. The court stated that the claim documents had been duly served on the defendant. It allowed 14 days from service for a written response and warned of a possible default judgment. No response arrived. Under the rule applied by the court, the claimant’s factual allegations are deemed admitted by the defendant in these circumstances. The court granted the monetary claim, referring to the owner’s duty to contribute to expenses. The court found justified a 200-euro court fee and 45 euros in legal expenses for preparing and drafting the claim. In assessing representative’s costs, it considered the case’s complexity and the volume and quality of work. These costs were awarded against the defendant. The judgment provides no information about actual payment of the debt or costs.

Outcome of this decision

Award the association the debt and 245 euros in litigation costs against XX, including a 200-euro court fee and 45 euros in legal expenses. The judgment is immediately enforceable.
2-17-9848

Narva linn, Turu tn 3 korteriühistu · 80228912

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

Editorial summary

The brief default judgment awards the association debt with late-payment interest and litigation costs; it does not describe the circumstances of the dispute.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-9848/3Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Natur-3: debt with late-payment interest and 178 euros in costs awarded by default

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Natur-3 · 80228912

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – KÜ Natur-3; Defendant XX; Association representative XX

Editorial summary

The brief default judgment awards the association debt with late-payment interest and litigation costs; it does not describe the circumstances of the dispute.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court granted the debt claim by the apartment association Natur-3 against XX by default. The association was awarded principal and accrued late-payment interest. Separately, the defendant was ordered to pay 178 euros in litigation costs: a 100-euro court fee and 78 euros in legal expenses. The court set out the result in an operative part without an account of the circumstances or reasons, using the option available for a default judgment. The judgment does not disclose the period in which the debt arose, the parties’ detailed arguments, how the claim was served or the specific circumstances underlying the default procedure. The judgment was declared immediately enforceable without security. This does not mean that the defendant has already transferred money. The judgment explains the option of applying to set aside the default judgment and reopen proceedings, and the claimant’s option of appealing. The source gives no subsequent outcome of any such applications.

Outcome of this decision

Award the association the debt and accrued late-payment interest, plus 178 euros in litigation costs, against XX. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security.
2-17-9835

Narva linn, Turu tn 3 korteriühistu · 80228912

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

Editorial summary

A brief default judgment awarded debt, late-payment interest and costs; it sets out no detailed circumstances or reasons.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-9835/3Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Natur-3: debt, late-payment interest and costs awarded in a brief default judgment

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Natur-3 · 80228912

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – KÜ Natur-3; Defendant – XX

Editorial summary

A brief default judgment awarded debt, late-payment interest and costs; it sets out no detailed circumstances or reasons.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court granted the claim by KÜ Natur-3 against XX by default and awarded principal, accrued late-payment interest and litigation costs covering the court fee and legal assistance. The judgment has no account of the circumstances or reasons. This copy does not state the period in which the debt arose, the parties’ detailed positions, how the claim was served or why the defendant did not participate. These circumstances cannot be reconstructed from the operative part alone. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security but does not confirm receipt of money by the association. The defendant was informed of the option to apply to set aside the default judgment and reopen proceedings, and the claimant of the option to appeal. No subsequent review is established.

Outcome of this decision

Award the association principal, accrued late-payment interest and litigation costs against XX. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security.
2-16-126261

Narva linn, Partisani tn 3 korteriühistu · 80175376

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

Editorial summary

No response arrived after service through the electronic court file; the court awarded debt, interest and the fee by default.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-126261/5Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Partisani 3: principal, interest and state fee awarded by default

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Korteriühistu Partisani 3 · 80175376

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — Korteriühistu Partisani 3; Defendant — owner XX

Editorial summary

No response arrived after service through the electronic court file; the court awarded debt, interest and the fee by default.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court granted the apartment association Partisani 3’s debt and interest claim against owner XX by default. The documents and ruling admitting the claim were served through the electronic court file. A response was due within 14 days of service and a default judgment warning was given, but no response arrived. The court awarded principal, accrued late-payment interest and a 200 euro fee. The short text contains no detailed independent examination of individual charges. The court did not accept the bank commission as recoverable court costs. A separate damages claim is not excluded, but no such claim was granted in this judgment. The judgment is immediately enforceable and does not confirm actual receipt of money.

Outcome of this decision

Award the association principal, accrued interest and a 200 euro fee against XX. Refuse the bank commission as court costs. The judgment is immediately enforceable.
2-17-6287

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 46 korteriühistu · 80170555

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayBills and justification of charges

Editorial summary

The association did not respond to the company’s claim; the court declared two claims absent by default and awarded the company court costs.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-6287/6Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 46: default judgment declared no company debt for interest and legal services

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

OÜ Peremaakler · Tallinna mnt 46 Korteriühistu · 11523072 · 80170555

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — OÜ Peremaakler; Defendant — Tallinna mnt 46 Korteriühistu

Editorial summary

The association did not respond to the company’s claim; the court declared two claims absent by default and awarded the company court costs.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court granted OÜ Peremaakler’s claim against Tallinna mnt 46 Korteriühistu by default. It declared that the company did not owe the association 2 614,55 euros in late-payment interest or 50 euros for legal services. It awarded the company 775 euros in court costs against the association, plus statutory interest on unpaid costs from entry into force until payment. The company bought an apartment at auction and became its owner in December 2016. It said the auction record showed no additional debts of the previous owner, but the association later issued an invoice including interest. The company considered the interest and legal services charge unjustified and sought a declaration that it had no duty to pay. The court admitted the claim on 9 May 2017, served the documents on the association on 11 May and the costs list on 13 June. It allowed 20 days to respond and warned of a default judgment. The association did not respond in time. The court granted the claim by default. The act contains no detailed objections from the association or separate examination of the lawfulness of each charge. The court found the requested 775 euros in costs justified; no objections to them had arrived either. The judgment is immediately enforceable. Declaring the two named claims absent does not mean those amounts are paid to the company: the monetary award concerns court costs and interest on them. Actual performance is not confirmed.

Outcome of this decision

Declare no debt owed by OÜ Peremaakler to the association for 2 614,55 euros in interest and 50 euros in legal services. Award the company 775 euros in costs against the association and statutory interest on the unpaid part from entry into force until performance. The judgment is immediately enforceable.
2-17-1783

Narva linn, V. Gerassimovi tn 4 korteriühistu · 80170236

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayObligations of multiple owners

Editorial summary

Each defendant was assigned separate debt, interest and costs amounts; no joint and several recovery of the entire amount from either was ordered.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-1783/8Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Gerassimovi 4: different shares of debt and interest awarded against two defendants by default

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Korteriühistu Gerassimovi 4 Narva · 80170236

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — Korteriühistu Gerassimovi 4 Narva; Defendants — two co-owners XX

Editorial summary

Each defendant was assigned separate debt, interest and costs amounts; no joint and several recovery of the entire amount from either was ordered.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court granted the apartment association Gerassimovi 4 Narva’s claim against two co-owners XX by default. Separate principal and accrued interest amounts were set for each according to ownership shares; further interest of 0,07% per day was awarded on each unpaid principal until payment. One defendant received the documents against signature; the other received them by placement in a mailbox. They were allowed 14 days to respond with a warning of a default judgment, but neither responded in time. The monetary obligations and state fee were assigned separately to each defendant, rather than jointly and severally. The text contains no detailed examination of individual charges. The judgment is immediately enforceable but does not confirm actual receipt of money.

Outcome of this decision

Award principal, accrued interest and a fee separately against each defendant XX. Further interest of 0,07% per day runs on the corresponding unpaid principal until payment. No joint and several recovery of the entire amount from either defendant was ordered. The judgment is immediately enforceable.
2-16-16692

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 25, Tallinna mnt 27 korteriühistu · 80162159

Water and sewerageMeters and readingsCalculation of water chargesApartment association bills, payments and debtsBills and justification of chargesLate-payment interest and consequences of delayPayment accounting and set-offLimitation of claims

Editorial summary

The owner challenged 53,16 euros as interest, but the court found that interest paid and instead identified a principal balance resulting from the order in which payments were applied.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-16692/16Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 25/27: owner’s requests for a finding of no debt and limitation rejected

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Tallinna mnt 25/27 · 80162159

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — owner XX; Defendant — KÜ Tallinna mnt 25/27

Editorial summary

The owner challenged 53,16 euros as interest, but the court found that interest paid and instead identified a principal balance resulting from the order in which payments were applied.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court dismissed XX’s claim against KÜ Tallinna mnt 25/27: it did not declare that the 53,16 euro debt was absent or grant the alternative request to establish expiry of limitation. This decides the owner’s claim; it is not a new monetary award to the association. The dispute began with cold water charges. The owner believed payment should follow the readings after a verified meter was installed. The association continued charging under the earlier standard and agreed to recalculate in May 2012. XX considered that there was then no basis for interest; the limitation period for old claims had also expired. The association objected that the owner continued reducing various invoices unilaterally after recalculation. Payments were applied first to accrued late-payment interest and then to principal. The balance therefore extended beyond the earlier water dispute. The court examined invoices and a summary calculation and agreed with the association. The owner had not challenged the meeting decision on standard water charges, which remained binding until amended. Unilaterally reducing invoices caused payment delays for which the association could seek interest. The court also found it lawful to apply payments first to interest and then to principal. It concluded that the disputed interest had already been paid in that way, while 53,16 euros in maintenance costs remained unpaid. It rejected the argument that refusing to pay interest allowed the owner to change this order. It also found no justification for reducing or refunding interest already paid. The limitation request was rejected: the court proceeded from the relevant earlier obligations having already been performed through payments, making limitation inapplicable to them. Costs were allocated to XX; their amount will be determined separately after the judgment enters into force.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss XX’s request for a declaration of no debt and the alternative limitation request. Leave the claimant’s own costs and the association’s costs to the claimant; their amount will be determined separately after entry into force.
2-15-17330

Narva linn, Rakvere tn 30 korteriühistu · 80175096

Contracts and servicesTenancy and leaseApartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsInstalments and payment schedules

Editorial summary

Under the agreement, the tenancy was recognised as remaining in force; XX was allowed to pay costs and debt owed to the association in instalments.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-17330/49Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Rakvere 30: agreement preserved a municipal tenancy and provided instalment payments

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn · SA Narva Linnaelamu · KÜ Rakvere 30 Narva · · 90003404 · 80175096

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — tenant XX; Defendant — Narva linn; City’s representative — SA Narva Linnaelamu; Third party on the city’s side — KÜ Rakvere 30 Narva

Editorial summary

Under the agreement, the tenancy was recognised as remaining in force; XX was allowed to pay costs and debt owed to the association in instalments.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court approved an agreement between XX and Narva linn, acting through SA Narva Linnaelamu, and ended the dispute seeking to cancel termination of a municipal tenancy. The parties confirmed that the tenancy remained in force. KÜ Rakvere 30 Narva participated as a third party on the city’s side. Under the agreement, XX agreed to pay court costs owed to SA Narva Linnaelamu and utility and maintenance debt owed to the association in instalments. The city retained the right to terminate the tenancy if the tenancy terms and the agreement’s utility payment and maintenance terms were breached. This is an agreed resolution preserving the tenancy, rather than a separate judicial determination of the lawfulness of the earlier termination. Each participant bears its other costs. Actual performance of the agreement has not been established.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement: the parties confirmed continuation of the municipal tenancy and agreed instalments for costs and debt owed to the association. Terminate the case. The city retains its right to terminate for breaches specified in the agreement; each participant bears its other costs.
2-16-19439

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 42 korteriühistu · 80054903

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayBills and justification of chargesApartment association meetings and decisions

Latest prepared act · · № 2-16-19439/11

Editorial summary

Refusal to accept the counterclaim was upheld, but lack of prospects was replaced as the reason by the existence of an identical dispute already pending.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 1 · Unprepared stages: 1
· RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-16-19439/11Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 42: counterclaim refused because another case between the same parties was already pending

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ Tallinna mnt 42 · 80054903

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Original claimant and counterclaim defendant – KÜ Tallinna mnt 42; Original defendant, counterclaimant and appellant – XX

Editorial summary

Refusal to accept the counterclaim was upheld, but lack of prospects was replaced as the reason by the existence of an identical dispute already pending.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Tallinna mnt 42 claimed debt and late-payment interest from XX. XX filed a counterclaim seeking a declaration that general meeting decisions were void, meaning without legal effect from adoption. XX linked the charges to what he considered an unjustified increase in the apartment’s floor area in the calculations. The county court refused to accept the counterclaim as having no prospect of success: no specific challenged decisions had been identified. The circuit court upheld the refusal but substituted its basis. Case 2-14-62722 concerning recalculation and absence of debt was already pending between the same parties. The court found that the counterclaim substantially coincided with the subject matter and objective of that dispute. Refusal concerned resubmission of an already pending demand, rather than a finding that XX lacked a right to legal protection. The court referred to its judgment of 8 June 2017 in the other case, which set aside the county court judgment of 3 October 2016 and remitted the case for reconsideration. The present ruling states that shared-property expenses are allocated in proportion to the owner’s share; a departure requires agreement by all owners. Calculation issues can be addressed when the related demands are heard. The circuit court suggested considering joinder of the two cases but did not join them by this ruling. The association’s monetary demand was not decided on its merits. Requests to restore the deadline for challenging the meeting decisions and to gather evidence were left undetermined, as the court did not consider those decisions’ validity decisive for this dispute. Appeal costs were imposed on XX without a specified amount.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss XX’s appeal; uphold the operative part of the ruling of 17 May 2017 with amended reasons. XX bears appeal costs. Neither the association’s monetary claim nor the validity of the meeting decisions was decided on its merits by this ruling.
Not prepared yet

· Case 2-16-19439 · Viru Maakohus · First instance

2-17-4354

Narva linn, V. Gerassimovi tn 4 korteriühistu · 80170236

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

Editorial summary

Relief from further late-payment interest depends on following the agreed schedule; the court approved the agreement and terminated proceedings.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-4354/8Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Gerassimovi 4: agreement approved for scheduled debt repayment by December 2017

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Gerassimovi 4 Narva · 80170236

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – KÜ Gerassimovi 4 Narva; Defendant – XX

Editorial summary

Relief from further late-payment interest depends on following the agreed schedule; the court approved the agreement and terminated proceedings.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court approved the agreement between the apartment association Gerassimovi 4 Narva and XX for scheduled debt repayment by December 2017 and terminated proceedings. The agreed amount included principal, past and current late-payment interest, and costs. If the payment amounts and deadlines were followed, the association undertook not to charge further late-payment interest on the total agreed debt up to and including 25 December 2017. Breach of the schedule provides for immediate recovery of the full agreed debt and late-payment interest; this clause does not specify a further rate. Each bears its own remaining costs. A partial court fee refund is to be decided by a separate ruling after this ruling becomes final. These are agreed terms, rather than an independent judicial examination of the original justification for every charge; performance is not established.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement on scheduled debt repayment and terminate the case. If the schedule is followed, no further late-payment interest accrues up to and including 25 December 2017; breach provides for immediate recovery of the agreed debt and late-payment interest. Each party bears its own remaining costs.