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
2-16-19439

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

2-15-13634

Narva linn, Linda tn 1 korteriühistu · 80180424

Damage and insuranceLeaks and floodingInsurance payment and insurer’s claimCause and proof of damageAmount of compensationHeatingRadiators, risers and the shared heating systemChanges to or disconnection from heatingAccess for inspection and repair

Latest prepared act · · № 2-15-13634/27

Editorial summary

The dismissal judgment was set aside; the association is liable for part of the damage, while the owner’s contribution to its occurrence reduced compensation.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 1 · Unprepared stages: 1
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-15-13634/27Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Linda 1: association ordered to reimburse insurer for part of the damage from a heating leak

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

If P&C Insurance AS · KÜ Linda 1 · OÜ Roburink · 10100168 · 80180424 ·

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and appellant – If P&C Insurance AS; Defendant – KÜ Linda 1; Policyholder and owner of the damaged premises – OÜ Roburink

Editorial summary

The dismissal judgment was set aside; the association is liable for part of the damage, while the owner’s contribution to its occurrence reduced compensation.

The dispute and the court’s decision

If P&C Insurance AS paid OÜ Roburink 16 292,44 euros for damage to the interior finishes of non-residential premises following a radiator leak on 22 August 2013 and sought reimbursement from the apartment association Linda 1. The county court dismissed the claim, but the circuit court set aside the judgment and granted the claim in part. The appeal court found a valid insurance contract and transfer of the claim to the insurer proved. Central heating radiators are shared property. Having taken over management of the entire system on 6 June 2013, the association had to inspect its condition and ensure access to valves in an emergency. Reliance on the summer season and the recent takeover of management did not remove those duties. The court linked their breach to the damage. The court accepted the restoration works calculation: the association proved earlier flooding, but not that its consequences were included in the submitted estimate. However, OÜ Roburink had altered the heating with deviations from the design, had not ensured the necessary supervision and cooperation with the association, and access to the valves was absent. The court therefore reduced compensation by 70%. The association was ordered to pay 4888 euros* in damages and 1065,35 euros in accrued late-payment interest. From 3 June 2017, interest accrues at the statutory rate until payment of the 4888 euros*; all late-payment interest awarded together is capped at 4888 euros*. Costs at both levels are borne 70% by the insurer and 30% by the association; the county court will quantify them after the judgment becomes final. The court applied the legislation in force when the damage arose. Use of this judgment in a new dispute requires attention to later legislative changes and the circumstances of that case.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the claim and appeal in part: award 4888 euros* in damages, 1065,35 euros in late-payment interest, and further statutory late-payment interest on 4888 euros* from 3 June 2017 until performance against the association. Total late-payment interest is capped at 4888 euros*. Costs are borne 70% by the insurer and 30% by the association; monetary amounts are determined separately.
Not prepared yet

· Case 2-15-13634 · 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.
2-16-19093

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 2 korteriühistu · 80180393

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

Editorial summary

The debt was paid during proceedings and was not awarded again, but XX must reimburse the association 180 euros in court fees.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-19093/10Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

NARV-KESKRING: claim dismissed after debt payment, but part of the court fee awarded

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KORTERIÜHISTU NARV-KESKRING · 80180393

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – KORTERIÜHISTU NARV-KESKRING; Defendant – XX

Editorial summary

The debt was paid during proceedings and was not awarded again, but XX must reimburse the association 180 euros in court fees.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association NARV-KESKRING sought debt payment from XX. By the hearing, the debt had been paid; the last payment was made after the claim was filed. The court dismissed the claim because the demand had been fulfilled. This is not a finding that no debt had existed from the outset. XX objected to litigation costs, citing the lack of a warning about court action. Taking account of payment after filing and the parties’ agreement at the hearing, the court imposed 72% of the court fee expenses on XX: the association was awarded 180 euros out of the 250 euros paid. The association bears the remaining fee, and each participant bears its own other costs. Payment of the awarded costs is not established.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss the claim. Impose 72% of the court fee expenses on XX and award the association 180 euros against XX. Each party bears its own other costs.
2-14-62363

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 40 korteriühistu · 80180370

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

Editorial summary

Instead of a decision on the claim and counterclaim, the court approved a 3000 euro payment and mutual waiver of claims.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-62363/36Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kangelaste 40 and FARKAM: mutual claims ended by a 3000 euro agreement

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

OÜ FARKAM · KORTERIÜHISTU KANGELASTE 40 · OÜ Mürin · 10176071 · 80180370 ·

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and counterclaim defendant — OÜ FARKAM; Defendant and counterclaimant — KORTERIÜHISTU KANGELASTE 40

Editorial summary

Instead of a decision on the claim and counterclaim, the court approved a 3000 euro payment and mutual waiver of claims.

The dispute and the court’s decision

OÜ FARKAM brought a monetary claim against the apartment association Kangelaste 40, and the association brought a counterclaim for damages. The court approved an agreement and terminated the case without deciding the original claims on their merits. The causes of the debt and damage are not described in detail in this act. The association undertook to pay FARKAM 3000 euros within 12 months from entry into force of the ruling. By agreement, payment is directed to OÜ Mürin’s account. The act establishes no monthly schedule. If the entire amount or a part due is paid late, interest of 0,5% is provided for each day of delay. FARKAM waived its claims and the association waived its counterclaim. The parties confirmed that they had no mutual monetary or property rights claims arising from the circumstances described or similar grounds; their earlier relations were settled by the agreement, whose terms exclude new pecuniary or non-pecuniary claims based on the earlier circumstances. FARKAM may apply to a bailiff to enforce the ruling. The hearing scheduled for 25 May 2017 was cancelled. Each party bears its own costs; refund of the fee is to be decided by a separate ruling after the act enters into force.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement, terminate the proceedings and cancel the hearing. The association pays 3000 euros within 12 months from entry into force of the act; late payment carries interest of 0,5% per day. Each party bears its own costs; refund of the fee is decided separately.
2-16-130057

Narva linn, Uusküla tn 9 korteriühistu · 80180269

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

Editorial summary

The court refused to accept for proceedings the claim because defects concerning its form, evidence, authority and fee had not been remedied.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-130057/3Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Uusküla 9: claim not accepted for proceedings after transfer from payment order proceedings

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva Korteriühistu Uusküla 9 · 80180269

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant and prospective claimant — Narva Korteriühistu Uusküla 9; Person against whom the claim was directed — XX

Editorial summary

The court refused to accept for proceedings the claim because defects concerning its form, evidence, authority and fee had not been remedied.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Uusküla 9 brought a monetary claim against XX in expedited payment order proceedings. After the debtor objected, Pärnu Maakohus ended that procedure on 15 March 2017 and transferred the application to Viru Maakohus for ordinary claim proceedings. By a ruling of the same date, Viru Maakohus required the association to formulate and substantiate the claim and pay an additional fee within 14 days of receiving the request. The association received the ruling on 25 March but did not submit a proper claim or pay the additional fee in time. The application available to the court also lacked documents supporting the claim and proving the representative’s authority. The court refused to accept for proceedings the application. The debt was neither examined on the merits nor awarded. The court explained that, upon refusal to accept for proceedings and return, the application is regarded as never filed or pending in ordinary claim proceedings. Costs were left to the association.

Outcome of this decision

Refuse to accept for proceedings the application; the apartment association Uusküla 9 bears the costs. The existence and amount of the debt were not determined on their merits.
2-17-4567

Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 9 korteriühistu · 80258758

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

Editorial summary

Personal service of the claim and the absence of a response led to a default award of debt, interest and the fee.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-4567/3Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

ÜHTEHOIDEV: maintenance debt and interest awarded by default

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KORTERIÜHISTU ÜHTEHOIDEV · 80258758

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — KORTERIÜHISTU ÜHTEHOIDEV; Defendant — XX

Editorial summary

Personal service of the claim and the absence of a response led to a default award of debt, interest and the fee.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association ÜHTEHOIDEV sought payment from XX for utilities and building maintenance. The claim documents were served personally on the defendant, but no response arrived in time. The court granted the claim by default under §407 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Principal and accrued late-payment interest were awarded against the defendant. The association was also awarded a 100 euro state fee; the court will determine legal costs separately. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security. A detailed factual description and reasons are absent: the act does not disclose every charge or substantive objections. It does not confirm actual payment.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the claim by default: award principal, accrued interest and a 100 euro fee. Legal costs are to be determined separately. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security.
2-16-107184

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 51 korteriühistu · 80189448

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

Editorial summary

Proceedings were terminated following acceptance of waiver after payment; XX must pay a further 525 euros in costs.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-107184/23Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Puškini tn 51: waiver accepted after payment of debt, with costs awarded separately

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Puškini tn 51 · 80189448

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — KÜ Puškini tn 51; Defendant — XX

Editorial summary

Proceedings were terminated following acceptance of waiver after payment; XX must pay a further 525 euros in costs.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Puškini tn 51 brought a debt and late-payment interest claim against XX. On 21 February 2017, the association reported payment of the debt and asked the court to accept waiver of the claim, terminate the case and award 525 euros in costs. The court accepted the waiver and terminated the proceedings. Because the defendant satisfied the claim only after it was filed, costs were allocated to the defendant. The association was awarded a combined 525 euros in state fees and legal assistance against XX; the act contains no breakdown between those types of costs. The defendant submitted no objections to the list of costs. The court explained that, after termination, the association cannot bring a claim against the same defendant with the same subject matter and grounds again. The ruling was ordered to be served publicly through Ametlikud Teadaanded; service is deemed to occur 15 days after publication of the extract. The act does not confirm that this publication actually took place.

Outcome of this decision

Accept the association’s waiver of the claim and terminate the case. Award the association 525 euros in costs against XX. Order public service of the ruling.
2-15-16043

Narva linn, Kraavi tn 12 korteriühistu · 80310766

Damage and insuranceDamage caused during repairsLeaks and floodingCause and proof of damageRepairs and shared propertyRoof and attic

Latest prepared act · · № 2-15-16043/63

Editorial summary

The appeal was dismissed: the claimant had not proved damage, and the court rejected the arguments about procedural breaches.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 2
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-15-16043/63Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Kraavi 12: dismissal of damage claim following roof repairs upheld

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ Kraavi 12 · 80310766

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and appellant – XX; Defendant – KÜ Kraavi 12

Editorial summary

The appeal was dismissed: the claimant had not proved damage, and the court rejected the arguments about procedural breaches.

The dispute and the court’s decision

XX sought 4500 euros in compensation and late-payment interest from the apartment association Kraavi 12, alleging that repairs to the roof, eaves and gutters in 2014 had damaged the apartment. The association denied flooding and damage. The county court dismissed the claim, and the circuit court left the judgment unchanged. The main reason for dismissal was failure to prove the damage itself in the circumstances alleged. Two witnesses examined denied the presence of flooding traces. Some Russian-language documents were disregarded: the court required an Estonian translation, set a deadline and explained the need for translation again, but the claimant did not provide one. The appeal court rejected the procedural objections. The claimant could have made a separate request to examine the necessary witness and objected to its refusal but did not do so. The claimant also did not ask for new facts and evidence to be admitted on appeal in the prescribed way. The court found the allocation of the burden of proof correct. As damage was unproved, the other conditions for the association’s liability were not examined separately.

Outcome of this decision

Leave the judgment of 15 July 2016 unchanged and dismiss the appeal. Damage in the alleged circumstances was not proved; other conditions for the association’s liability were not examined separately.
· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-16043/43Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Damages claimed for an alleged leak after roof repairs

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ KRAAVI 12 · 80310766

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: XX — claimant, owner; Association — defendant

Editorial summary

The alleged damage after repairs was not found proven.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ KRAAVI 12 (now — Narva linn, Kraavi tn 12 korteriühistu). XX sought compensation from KÜ KRAAVI 12 for damage to interior finishes allegedly caused by roof repairs. The association disputed the leak and the loss claimed. The court disregarded Russian-language documents lacking the translation it had requested, could not establish where or when the photographs were taken, and considered testimony from witnesses who saw no flood damage. Its concluding reasons find the damage unproven.

Outcome of this decision

The operative part dismisses the claim in full. The concluding reasons find no proof of damage and therefore do not examine the other conditions of liability. The claimant bears the association’s costs, to be quantified separately.
2-16-19099

Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 44 korteriühistu · 80158672

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

Editorial summary

Two defendants are jointly and severally liable for utility debt, interest and costs awarded by default.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-19099/7Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kreenholmi 44: debt and interest awarded jointly and severally against two defendants by default

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KORTERIÜHISTU Kreenholmi 44 · 80158672

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — KORTERIÜHISTU Kreenholmi 44; Two defendants — XX

Editorial summary

Two defendants are jointly and severally liable for utility debt, interest and costs awarded by default.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Kreenholmi 44 brought a claim against two defendants XX for utilities and building maintenance. The claim documents were delivered to their mailboxes. No responses arrived in time, and the court granted the claim by default. Principal and accrued late-payment interest were awarded against the defendants jointly and severally. The association may seek the unpaid awarded amount from either within the common obligation, but cannot recover the entire amount twice. Court costs were also allocated to the defendants jointly and severally. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security. A detailed factual description and reasons are absent; the act itself does not confirm actual payment.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the claim by default: award principal and accrued interest against the two defendants jointly and severally. Costs are also allocated to them jointly and severally. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security.
2-14-20708

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 19 korteriühistu · 80054978

Damage and insuranceLeaks and floodingCause and proof of damageAmount of compensationRepairs and shared propertyRoof and attic

Editorial summary

The need for repairs did not establish the cause and amount of new loss from the particular leak.

· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-14-20708/51Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Puškini tn 19: the link between damage and a roof leak was not proved

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Puškini tn 19 Korteriühistu · 80054978

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and appellant — owner XX; defendant — Puškini tn 19 Korteriühistu

Editorial summary

The need for repairs did not establish the cause and amount of new loss from the particular leak.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Puškini tn 19 Korteriühistu (now — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 19 korteriühistu). Owner XX sought compensation from Puškini tn 19 Korteriühistu for damage attributed to a roof leak. The first-instance court dismissed the claim. The appellate court upheld that decision: damage in the alleged circumstances, its amount and its causal link to the association’s conduct were not proved. Inspection records established a need for repairs, but not when or why the damage arose. Witness accounts conflicted. Earlier damage had not been shown to have been remedied; comparison of inspections did not establish deterioration caused by the alleged later leak. Nor was it proved that the water had actually come through the roof. New annotations on an earlier record did not establish those missing facts. The court separately explained that a damages claim does not pass automatically with an apartment under association-membership rules. However, the transfer agreement could be interpreted as assigning the claim. That did not remove the need to prove the loss itself. The appeal was dismissed and XX was ordered to pay the association 378 euros in appellate costs.

Outcome of this decision

The dismissal was upheld and the appeal refused; the association was awarded 378 euros in appellate costs.
2-17-2586

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 2 korteriühistu · 80180393

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

Editorial summary

The court approved an agreement confirming that the association had no recoverable claims and terminated the case.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-2586/4Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

NARV-KESKRING and AGARTE: agreement confirmed absence of recoverable claims

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KORTERIÜHISTU NARV-KESKRING · OSAÜHING AGARTE · 80180393 · 10369315

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – KORTERIÜHISTU NARV-KESKRING; Defendant – OSAÜHING AGARTE

Editorial summary

The court approved an agreement confirming that the association had no recoverable claims and terminated the case.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association NARV-KESKRING brought a monetary claim against OÜ AGARTE. Under the agreement of 23 March 2017, the association confirmed that it had no recoverable claims against the company at the time of signing and waived the claim. The court approved the agreement and terminated the case. The ruling does not explain whether an earlier debt had been paid or whether the claim was absent for another reason. Nor does it independently establish that the company had never owed a debt. The result is the end of a particular dispute on agreed terms. Each participant bears its own costs. The association is entitled to a refund of 125 euros, half the 250-euro court fee paid, after the ruling becomes final. This ruling does not establish an actual refund.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement and terminate proceedings. Each party bears its own costs. Refund the association 125 euros in court fees after the ruling becomes final.