Narva apartment associations Court decisions

Ending services to save money did not remove the agreed notice period or payment for it.

KÜ Tiimani 4 (now — Narva linn, Soldina tn 4 korteriühistu). Service provider XX sought two months of accounting fees, compensation for shortened notice and late-payment interest from KÜ Tiimani 4. The appellate court reversed the first-instance dismissal and allowed the claim. The agreement was a mandate contract: ongoing accounting is a continuing service rather than production of a distinct result. There was no employment contract between the parties. The association’s notice cited saving money as its reason. Breaches justifying termination without the agreed notice were not proved. Later demands for documents and a contract with a new accountant did not establish grounds for the notice already sent. The association’s alleged losses were not established either. The contract required 60 days’ written notice. The association’s refusal of further services before that period expired did not release it from the duty to pay. The court upheld two months’ fees and the claim for the remaining month, assessing the amount by established monthly practice and comparable services. Payment for services, compensation for the remaining notice period and accrued late-payment interest were awarded. Further late-payment interest until performance was neither sought nor awarded. Costs in both instances were reduced to 375 euros in view of the claim value and ordinary complexity: a 175-euro fee and 200 euros for legal assistance. Translation costs lacked documentary proof. Actual payment of the award was not established.

The first-instance dismissal was reversed; the claim and appeal were allowed. The association must pay for services, the remaining notice period, fixed late-payment interest and reduced costs.

OÜ ROBURINK did not obtain access to the apartment association Linda 1’s documents. The court dismissed the claim, citing insufficient substantiation of interest and an imprecise document list.

The company ROBURINK sought meeting minutes and documents on the association’s repairs, contracts, invoices and expenditure over several years. It considered that the accounts did not explain the work actually done and charges made, and that the board obstructed scrutiny. The company relied on a member’s right to information and the right to inspect documents where a justified interest exists. The association objected that the company had sold its premises during the proceedings and ceased to be a member. It had no unpaid debt to the association. The association requested that the claim be left without examination or dismissed, arguing that the interest had not been substantiated and the document list was too general. The court found that ROBURINK was still a member when it filed the claim, but had ceased to be one through the sale by the time of the hearing. The court also assessed independent grounds for access to documents. It distinguished inspection from transfer of possession: the provision cited by the claimant did not give a right to receive the documents. From the explanation about copies, the court concluded that transfer of the documents was in fact sought. The court also found the company’s specific interest unproven: it had not shown which documents concerned its legal relationships or reported preparation of another claim for which they were needed. The general list did not allow the documents to be produced to be identified precisely or a possible judgment to be enforced. The claim was dismissed in full. ROBURINK was left to bear the association’s costs as well as its own. The judgment did not determine a specific costs amount.

Dismiss OÜ ROBURINK’s claim against the apartment association Linda 1 for access to documents. Order ROBURINK to bear the association’s costs and leave the company’s own costs to it.

Claimant XX sought a declaration of nullity and invalidation of the apartment association Narva Sõbralik meeting decisions of 06.05.2010, relying primarily on the failure to provide documents two weeks before discussion. The court considered XX’s appeal against Viru Maakohus’s dismissal judgment of 16.05.2011.

Claimant XX challenged decisions of the apartment association Narva Sõbralik (now – Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 2a korteriühistu) general meeting of 6 May 2010, seeking a declaration that they were void from adoption or an order invalidating them. The dispute concerned advance access to the management plan, report and balance sheet. The claimant said the necessary documents had not been provided two weeks before the meeting. The association objected that the convening procedure had been followed, documents had been sent, and breach of the duty to inform did not by itself prevent the meeting from taking place. Viru Maakohus dismissed the claim on 16 May 2011. The first-instance court acknowledged that the period for examining documents had been breached but considered this insufficient to grant the claim. Claimant XX appealed for the judgment to be set aside. The circuit court agreed with the assessment of the evidence that documents had been provided late, but rejected the legal conclusion that this had no consequences. The management plan and report were handed over only three days before discussion; provision of the balance sheet had not been established. Under the rules then applied, advance access had to allow association members reasonable time to assess important management matters. That provision did not, however, require the audit committee’s report to be sent as well. The appeal was allowed in part. The court set aside the dismissal concerning approval of the 2009 report, the 2010 budget, and the 2010 repair work and repair fund contribution rate, and itself invalidated these three decisions. Dismissal of the challenge to the fourth decision, on how received payments were accounted for, remained unchanged: the court found no connection with the established breach. Costs at both levels were allocated 25% to claimant XX and 75% to the association; the association was also ordered to pay 50 euros in court fees to the state. The result invalidates specific decisions; it does not declare every decision of the meeting void from the outset.

Allow the appeal in part. Set aside the first-instance dismissal of the challenge to decisions under items 1–3 of the 06.05.2010 meeting and give a new judgment in that part: invalidate approval of the 2009 report, the 2010 budget, and the 2010 repair work and repair fund contribution rate. Leave the rest unchanged. First-instance and appeal costs: 25% borne by claimant XX and 75% by the apartment association Narva Sõbralik. Order the association to pay 50 euros in court fees to the state within 15 days after the judgment becomes final.