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
2-16-10352

Narva linn, Kosmonaudi tn 9, Linda tn 7 korteriühistu · 80180884

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

Editorial summary

The court approved the debt and minimum monthly payment agreement and terminated the case.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-10352/29Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kosmonaudi 9 / Linda 7: debt payments of at least 50 euros per month approved

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kosmonaudi tn 9, Linda tn 7 korteriühistu · 80180884

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — Narva linn, Kosmonaudi tn 9, Linda tn 7 korteriühistu; Defendant — XX

Editorial summary

The court approved the debt and minimum monthly payment agreement and terminated the case.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court approved a settlement between Narva linn, Kosmonaudi tn 9, Linda tn 7 korteriühistu and XX and terminated the debt and interest case. The agreed amount included principal, accrued interest and half the state fee. Monthly payments of no less than the agreed minimum are provided. This is a minimum contribution, not a prohibition on paying more. The court explained that an identical claim cannot be brought again; if the agreement is not performed, the association may apply to a bailiff. Each party bears its other costs. In addition to the half fee included in the defendant’s obligation, the association was awarded a separate 112,50 euro refund from the budget. The parties excluded the right to appeal. The act does not confirm payments or actual refund of the fee.

Outcome of this decision

Approve monthly payments of no less than the agreed minimum and terminate the case. Each party bears its other costs; order a refund to the association of 112,50 euros in fees from the budget.
2-16-12373

Korteriühistu XX Narva · If P&C Insurance AS

Damage and insuranceFireLeaks and floodingCause and proof of damageInsurance payment and insurer’s claimRepairs and shared propertyRoof and attic

Editorial summary

The court required examination of fire-safety measures and the basis of the association’s liability.

· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-16-12373/34Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Fire in a shared attic: the compensation dispute was remitted

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Korteriühistu XX Narva · If P&C Insurance AS · · 10100168

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and appellant — owner XX; defendant — Korteriühistu XX Narva; third party — If P&C Insurance AS

Editorial summary

The court required examination of fire-safety measures and the basis of the association’s liability.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Owner XX sought compensation from Korteriühistu XX Narva for water damage caused while extinguishing a fire in the shared attic. The association disputed liability and the amount of loss; insurer If P&C Insurance AS participated as a third party. The first-instance court dismissed the claim for lack of proof of a breach by the association. The appellate court reversed and remitted the case. Association duties may arise directly from statute, rather than solely from its articles or meeting resolutions. Maintaining the common attic and basic fire safety are association responsibilities; failure to act may give rise to liability. The cause of the fire remained unresolved. The association must prove what safety measures it took; the court pointed to the need for a Päästeamet assessment of fire safety. Liability insurance does not remove the injured owner’s right to claim against the association. The insurer’s willingness to reimburse part of the loss and payments to other owners required examination, but did not constitute a final award in this claim. On rehearing, liability must be established first and the amount of loss then examined. The first-instance court will allocate costs according to the new outcome.

Outcome of this decision

The dismissal was reversed and the case remitted; liability and the amount of compensation remain undecided.
2-15-17886

KORTERIÜHISTU NARVA KOOLIPÕIK · 80180559 · dissolved

Editorial summary

The company’s payment and reimbursement of half the fee were agreed; the order does not disclose the debt’s basis.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-17886/62Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Narva Koolipõik and OÜ Astlanda Ehitus: settlement terms

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KORTERIÜHISTU NARVA KOOLIPÕIK · OÜ Astlanda Ehitus · 80180559 · 11366804

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — KORTERIÜHISTU NARVA KOOLIPÕIK; defendant — OÜ Astlanda Ehitus

Editorial summary

The company’s payment and reimbursement of half the fee were agreed; the order does not disclose the debt’s basis.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KORTERIÜHISTU NARVA KOOLIPÕIK brought a debt claim against OÜ Astlanda Ehitus. The parties settled at the hearing; the court found the agreement permissible and capable of performance, approved it and discontinued proceedings. The order does not identify the contract or service giving rise to the original debt. OÜ Astlanda Ehitus undertook to pay the association 2 592 euros under the settlement and 275 euros to reimburse half the state fee, by 12 May 2018. Each party bears its other costs; no additional reimbursement beyond the settlement was ordered. Refund of the state fee was reserved for a separate order after finality. The parties waived appeal. Approval of the terms does not establish their performance.

Outcome of this decision

The settlement was approved and the case discontinued. OÜ Astlanda Ehitus must pay 2 592 euros and 275 euros in costs to the association by 12 May 2018.
2-17-9852

Narva linn, Turu tn 3 korteriühistu · 80228912

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

Editorial summary

The association reported payment and waived its claim; the court terminated proceedings.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-9852/14Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Nartur-3: debt case against two defendants ended after a report of payment

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Nartur-3 · 80228912

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – KÜ Nartur-3; Defendants – XX and XX

Editorial summary

The association reported payment and waived its claim; the court terminated proceedings.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court accepted KÜ Nartur-3’s waiver of its claim against XX and XX and terminated the debt case. The association explained that it was waiving the claim because the defendants had paid the debt. On 16 February 2018, the association asked to end proceedings following payment. The court accepted the waiver and explained its consequence: the same claim against the same defendants on the same grounds cannot be brought again. This ruling makes no new award of debt or late-payment interest. The result is termination following the association’s waiver based on its report that the demand had been met.

Outcome of this decision

Accept KÜ Nartur-3’s waiver and terminate proceedings on its claim against the two defendants XX.
2-16-8429

Narva linn, Kalda tn 6 korteriühistu · 80338842

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

Editorial summary

The company and association determined the debt by agreement and separately provided for passing on money if it arrives from bankruptcy proceedings.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-8429/43Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kalda 6: payment of 2 265,06 euros and conditional transfer of funds received from bankruptcy proceedings approved

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

TSL Kinnisvara OÜ · Narva linn, Kalda tn 6 korteriühistu · 12652725 · 80338842

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and counterclaim defendant – TSL Kinnisvara OÜ; Defendant and counterclaimant – Narva linn, Kalda tn 6 korteriühistu; Mentioned bankruptcy trustee – XX

Editorial summary

The company and association determined the debt by agreement and separately provided for passing on money if it arrives from bankruptcy proceedings.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court approved a settlement between TSL Kinnisvara OÜ and Narva linn, Kalda tn 6 korteriühistu and ended their mutual dispute over the amount of debt. The company had brought a declaratory claim and the association a counterclaim for payment. The parties agreed that the company’s debt as at 1 May 2017 was 2 265,06 euros. It is payable within three banking days after the agreement enters into force. The ruling does not disclose detailed initial calculations or objections. If the trustee in related bankruptcy proceedings transfers 618,35 euros to the association under the obligation specified in the agreement, the association must pass the received sum to the company within one calendar month of receipt. This condition depends on receiving payment; it does not confirm that the money arrived. The court considered the agreement permissible and enforceable and terminated the case. Each party bears its own costs, with no amounts reimbursable between them. Refund of half the court fee is to be addressed by separate rulings after finality; payment and refund are not established.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement: TSL Kinnisvara OÜ pays the association 2 265,06 euros within three banking days after the agreement enters into force. If the association receives 618,35 euros from the trustee under the stated obligation, it passes that sum to the company within a calendar month of receipt. Terminate proceedings; each bears its own costs and court fee refunds are decided separately.
2-17-114918

Narva linn, Hariduse tn 26 korteriühistu · 80218606

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

Editorial summary

The court awarded debt and late-payment interest by default after no response to the served claim.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-114918/8Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Hariduse 26: utility debt, late-payment interest and court fee awarded by default

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Hariduse 26 Narva · 80218606

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – KÜ Hariduse 26 Narva; Defendant – owner XX

Editorial summary

The court awarded debt and late-payment interest by default after no response to the served claim.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Hariduse 26 Narva claimed building maintenance charges and late-payment interest from owner XX. The claim documents were served via the mailbox. The defendant was asked to respond in writing and warned of the consequences of not doing so, but no response or objections arrived in time. The court considered the claim legally justified and applied the default procedure, under which the claimant’s factual allegations are deemed admitted if no timely response is made. It awarded principal, accrued late-payment interest and the court fee, plus continuing late-payment interest of 0,07% per day on unpaid principal until repayment. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security. This does not confirm actual receipt of money by the association.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the claim by default: award principal, accrued late-payment interest, continuing late-payment interest of 0,07% per day on unpaid principal until repayment, and litigation costs. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security.
2-16-129736

Narva linn, Malmi tn 10 korteriühistu · 80175972

Contracts and servicesWorks contracts and designPayment, advance payments and refundsRepairs and shared propertyRoof and atticOrganisation and funding of repairs

Latest prepared act · · № 2-16-129736/45

Editorial summary

The extra 500 euros was not awarded: in this case the signed invoice confirmed receipt of the document, rather than agreement to increase the price.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 2
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-16-129736/45Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Malmitare: contractor did not prove agreement on extra payment for roofing material

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

OÜ Hiolen · KÜ Malmitare · 12530714 · 80175972

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and appellant – OÜ Hiolen, contractor; Defendant – KÜ Malmitare, customer

Editorial summary

The extra 500 euros was not awarded: in this case the signed invoice confirmed receipt of the document, rather than agreement to increase the price.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Tartu Ringkonnakohus dismissed OÜ Hiolen’s appeal and upheld the refusal to award an additional 500 euros for roofing material against KÜ Malmitare. The court found that the contractor had not proved the association’s consent to increase the price or enter a separate additional-payment agreement. The contractor had repaired the roof and alleged that the parties agreed to buy higher-quality material for an additional charge. It relied on an invoice dated 4 November 2014 signed by representatives of both parties and sworn testimony from its representative. It argued that the signatures confirmed a contract amendment. The association objected that it had fully paid the agreed price of 28 378,12 euros for works and materials. It said the signature on the additional invoice confirmed only receipt of the document. There was no agreement to increase the price, and the final invoice and acceptance certificate retained the former price. The circuit court agreed with the association. The contractual estimate bound the contractor. To demand more, it had to prove a change to the total price or a separate agreement to cover the increase. The contract required a written amendment procedure: a written proposal by one party and a written reply by the other within five working days. The court did not see expressed consent to amend the contract in the disputed invoice; a note about agreement between the parties was insufficient. Neither the association’s conduct nor the contractor representative’s testimony established a separate agreement. Dismissal of the claim remained in force. Appeal costs were imposed on OÜ Hiolen; the county court will quantify them after the judgment becomes final. The judgment concerns proof of this specific extra charge and does not establish that a signature on any invoice always has the same meaning.

Outcome of this decision

Leave the Viru Maakohus judgment of 29 September 2017 unchanged and dismiss OÜ Hiolen’s appeal. The contractor bears appeal costs; the county court will quantify them after the judgment becomes final.
· JudgmentViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-16-129736/36Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Malmitare and OÜ Hiolen: an invoice did not prove an extra-payment agreement

Judgment · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

OÜ Hiolen · KÜ Malmitare · 12530714 · 80175972

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — OÜ Hiolen; defendant — KÜ Malmitare

Editorial summary

A signature acknowledging receipt did not prove agreement on extra materials and price.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Malmitare (now — Narva linn, Malmi tn 10 korteriühistu). OÜ Hiolen sought 500 euros from KÜ Malmitare for additional roofing materials. The main roof-repair contract had been performed: the works were accepted and the agreed price paid. The dispute concerned a separate extra charge. The contractor treated the association representative’s signature on the invoice as confirmation of a contract amendment; the association said it only acknowledged receipt. The court agreed with the association. The contract prescribed a written amendment procedure which had not been followed. The acceptance record, final invoice, correspondence and meeting minutes did not establish an additional agreement. The documents and disputed invoice identified the same roofing material. The signature on the invoice was insufficient to prove a new obligation to pay for materials. The claim was dismissed. Hiolen bears its own and the association’s costs; the latter will be quantified separately after finality. The court granted permission to appeal.

Outcome of this decision

The 500-euro extra charge was refused; OÜ Hiolen bears costs, with the association’s costs quantified separately.
2-17-11161

Narva linn, Soldina tn 10 korteriühistu · 80170667

Water and seweragePipes, risers and sewerageAccess for inspection and repair

Editorial summary

XX must remove wall panels to allow completion of pipe replacement; the association provided for compensation for possible damage from necessary work.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-11161/16Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Tiimani 10: court approved removal of panels to access water pipes

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KORTERIÜHISTU TIIMANI 10 · 80170667

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – KORTERIÜHISTU TIIMANI 10; Defendant – XX

Editorial summary

XX must remove wall panels to allow completion of pipe replacement; the association provided for compensation for possible damage from necessary work.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court approved the settlement between KORTERIÜHISTU TIIMANI 10 and XX and terminated the case concerning access to water pipes. XX undertook to remove wall panels within ten days after the ruling becomes final so that the association could complete pipe replacement in the section of the system specified in the agreement. The association had sought a court order securing that access. The ruling does not set out the initial objections or reasons for the dispute in detail. On 11 January 2018, the parties submitted agreed terms for approval. The court checked their permissibility and approved the agreement. XX bears the costs of removing the panels and other expenses of providing access to the system. The association, for its part, guaranteed compensation for possible damage during necessary pipe replacement work under the Apartment Ownership and Apartment Associations Act provision cited in the agreement. This ruling does not determine the amount of possible damage. XX must also pay the association 362,50 euros in litigation costs by 31 January 2018: 150 euros, half the court fee, and 212,50 euros, half the legal expenses. Each participant bears its other costs. The court ordered a further 150 euros in court fees refunded to the association from the state budget after the ruling becomes final. It explained the possibility of enforcing the agreement, but this ruling does not confirm actual completion of the works or payments.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement: XX removes panels to provide water-pipe access within ten days after the ruling becomes final and bears access costs. The association guarantees the agreed compensation for possible damage from necessary work. XX pays the association 362,50 euros in costs by 31 January 2018. Terminate the case; each bears its other costs, and a further 150 euros in court fees is refunded to the association from the state budget after finality.
2-17-10108

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 19 korteriühistu · 80021192

The apartment association as employerTermination of employment contractsPay and compensation

Editorial summary

The employee challenged the June notices but left unchallenged the March notice that had ended the contract earlier.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-10108/12Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kangelaste 19: employment claim left without examination because an earlier dismissal was not challenged

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Kangelaste pr 19 · 80021192

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — employee XX; Defendant — employer KÜ Kangelaste pr 19

Editorial summary

The employee challenged the June notices but left unchallenged the March notice that had ended the contract earlier.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court left XX’s claim against KÜ Kangelaste pr 19 concerning termination of an employment contract and compensation without examination. It concluded that the challenged June notices could not change the employee’s position: the contract had already ended under an earlier notice not challenged in this case. XX sought a declaration that the June 2017 termination notices were void, meaning they had no legal effect, followed by termination through the court and compensation. The association opposed the claim and produced another notice drawn up in March 2017. That notice terminated the contract before the June notices because of work reorganisation and disappearance of the position. The court invited the employee to explain how the June notices infringed rights if employment had already ended. XX replied that clarifying the grounds of dismissal was precisely why the claim was brought and maintained the original requests. XX also considered one June notice to concern the same contract despite bearing a different number. The court proceeded from the contract having ended under the March notice before the later June notices. The employee neither challenged the March notice nor explained why it had not ended employment. The court considered that even declaring the later notices void would not restore the contract or allow it to be terminated again through the court with the compensation sought. It therefore left the claim without examination. This ruling does not determine the merits of the March dismissal itself. Costs were allocated to the claimant, with the amount determined separately after entry into force. The court also explained the general possibility of applying again after a claim is left without examination.

Outcome of this decision

Leave XX’s claim for a declaration of nullity of termination notices and compensation without examination. The claimant bears costs; their amount will be determined separately after entry into force.
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.
2-16-14583

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 42 korteriühistu · 80054903

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeQuorum and repeat meetingsAgenda and minutesArticles of association and amendments

Latest prepared act · · № 2-16-14583/34

Editorial summary

The repeat meeting was found competent to decide under the association’s articles. The appeal court rejected both claimants’ requests to set aside the decisions or establish their nullity.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 1 · Unprepared stages: 1
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-16-14583/34Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 42: appeal court rejected both claimants’ challenges to a repeat meeting

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Korteriühistu Tallinna mnt 42 · 80054903

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: two claimants XX — association members; one claimant XX — appellant; defendant and appellant — apartment association; parties’ representatives XX

Editorial summary

The repeat meeting was found competent to decide under the association’s articles. The appeal court rejected both claimants’ requests to set aside the decisions or establish their nullity.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The circuit court allowed the apartment association Tallinna mnt 42’s appeal and dismissed the appeal of one of the two claimants XX. As a result, both claimants’ challenges to the meeting decisions of 4 August 2016 were rejected and costs at both instances allocated to them. The claimants considered that the meeting lacked enough participants to decide. After the meeting of 21 July failed for lack of a quorum, a new one was convened. They argued that the invitation did not identify it as a repeat meeting, so more than half of all members had to attend. The association replied that both meetings had the same agenda and its articles allowed a repeat meeting to decide regardless of attendance. The first instance granted one participant’s claim but dismissed the other’s because that person was present when the decisions were adopted and did not request that objections be recorded in the minutes. The circuit court confirmed the latter ground for a request to set a decision aside. It also explained that this participant could invoke nullity, meaning no legal effect from adoption, even without recorded objections. The court nevertheless found no grounds for nullity. The articles’ repeat meeting rule complied with the law applied. The meeting of 4 August was recognised as a repeat meeting because it followed a meeting with the same agenda lacking a quorum. Even omission of the word “repeat” from the notice did not itself make it a first meeting. The alleged convening breaches were not established. The court also noted defects in the original judgment’s wording: all items, including purely organisational ones, cannot be set aside without clarification. The county court will determine the amount of costs after the appeal judgment enters into force.

Outcome of this decision

Set aside the grant of one claimant’s claim and the earlier costs allocation. In the new complete operative part, dismiss both claimants XX’s claims. Allow the association’s appeal and dismiss the other claimant’s appeal. Allocate costs at both instances to the claimants, with the amount determined separately.
Not prepared yet

· Case 2-16-14583 · Viru Maakohus · First instance

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.