Narva apartment associations Court decisions

Claimant XX did not obtain a declaration that the apartment association VANA LOSS decision on heating cost allocation was void. The appeal upheld the first-instance result while changing the legal reasoning.

The claimant challenged item 2 of the meeting decision of 22 August 2012, which changed the rules in the articles of association for allocating utility expenses, including heating. The claimant argued that the new arrangement unjustifiably increased charges for premises fully connected to central heating and favoured another owner. The association opposed the claim and also relied on a later meeting decision. The first-instance court dismissed the claim, but applied rules on invalidating a decision without examining the arguments about conflict with good morals and good faith on their merits. The appeal court noted that the claimant had specifically sought a declaration of nullity: absence of legal effect from adoption. Subsequent confirmation of the decision did not itself remove the right to rely on nullity, and the voting majority was not in dispute. The appeal court examined the grounds raised but did not find them established. The rules in force allowed the articles to allocate costs differently from a floor-area calculation. Higher charges for some owners did not in themselves mean a conflict with good morals. In this case, the court took account of the fact that the non-residential premises were used as a shop and did not require the same temperature as a home. The alleged omission of the claimant’s objections from the minutes was likewise not considered a ground for nullity. The court agreed that the request to join other owners had not been properly determined, but found that this had not affected the result: a judgment in such a dispute applies to association members regardless of their participation in proceedings. The appeal was dismissed. The operative part of the first judgment was upheld and costs at both levels were imposed on the claimant. Another judgment concerning the meeting of 20 December 2012 was dealt with separately and, according to this source, was already final when this case was considered.

Dismiss claimant XX’s appeal and uphold the operative part of the Viru Maakohus judgment of 9 October 2013, changing its legal reasoning in part. The claimant must bear costs at both levels.

A company that was a member of the association challenged an amendment to the articles and a management plan establishing different maintenance rates for individuals and legal entities.

OÜ Esteetilise Meditsiini Keskus Gratsija challenged decisions of the apartment association Puškini 20’s meeting of 1 April 2010. The company objected to changes to the articles of association and management plan that allowed maintenance charges to be calculated differently for individuals and legal entities. The claimant argued for payment in proportion to floor area and also said it had not been given the draft plan. The association justified the additional burden of business premises by reference to visitors, security, cleaning and maintenance of common areas. It argued that distributing additional costs equally would be unfair and that the necessary documents had been sent to the claimant. The annual plan applied different calculation figures to the two groups: 82,91 and 125,79 kroons per square metre. The court found that floor area was used for everyone, but the rates differed according to the category of owner and the use of the premises. Applying the rules then in force, it distinguished an alternative method of allocating particular types of costs from different maintenance rates for different groups. In the court’s view, the option to provide a different calculation method in the articles did not justify introducing such different rates. The court disagreed that the draft management plan had not been supplied at all, but noted that the allocation method had not been sent to the claimant. By its judgment of 29 September 2010, it granted the claim, setting aside the relevant part of the amendment to clause 4.2e of the articles and the part of the management plan providing for a special calculation of costs. This set aside specific provisions; it did not declare all the meeting’s decisions void. The association was ordered to bear the claimant’s costs as well as its own; the judgment did not determine their monetary amount.

Grant the claim. Set aside the part of the decision under agenda item 4 amending clause 4.2e of the articles that allowed different allocation rules for the two groups, and the part of the decision under agenda item 3 providing for a special calculation of management costs in the 2010 plan. The association is to bear the claimant’s costs and its own costs.