Narva apartment associations Court decisions

The collection is growing. We explain decisions in accessible language. Browsing by subject helps readers study building management practice, explore similar situations and prevent conflicts.

Materials for studying practice. An editorial summary does not replace an individual legal assessment or promise a dispute outcome.

Subjects and subtopics

A subject describes the dispute; it does not establish a violation.

Additional parameters

Apartment association / building

Year of actCourt level

Reset all

Case 2-15-18123Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 19 korteriühistu · 80021192

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeArticles of association and amendmentsBudget, management plan and ratesApartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the boardParking and groundsConstruction of parking facilities

How it started · editorial summary

The court approved the agreement between Narva linn and the association on nullity of the listed meeting decisions and reimbursement of costs; proceedings were terminated.

10.11.2017 · RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-18123/43Read actFirst instance10.11.2017

Separate act page

Kangelaste 19: court approved city and association’s agreement on nullity of meeting decisions

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn · Narva Linnaelamu · Kangelaste pr 19 korteriühistu · · 11129843 · 80021192

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — Narva linn through Narva Linnaelamu; defendant — apartment association; parties’ representatives XX; former management board chair XX

How it started · editorial summary

The court approved the agreement between Narva linn and the association on nullity of the listed meeting decisions and reimbursement of costs; proceedings were terminated.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court approved an agreement between Narva linn, acting through Narva Linnaelamu, and the apartment association Kangelaste pr 19 and terminated the case. The city challenged the association’s general meeting decision of 20 June 2015, seeking a finding of nullity, meaning absence of legal effect, or alternatively to have it set aside. Under the agreement, the association accepted that the meeting decisions of 11 February 2016 electing a board, choosing an audit firm, confirming the meeting decision of 20 June 2015 and amending the articles were void because the convening procedure had been breached. The agreement also lists related decisions on reporting, the management plan, board activities and membership, moving a playground and building a parking area, which the parties acknowledged as void. The court checked that the agreement did not conflict with the law, good morals or the public interest. The association undertook to reimburse the city a 150 euro fee and 1100 euros in legal assistance costs. The court additionally ordered a refund to the city of 150 euros of the fee paid, payable after the ruling enters into force. The parties waived appeals. If the agreement is not performed, the creditor may apply to a bailiff; the act contains no information on actual performance.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement on nullity of the listed general meeting decisions and terminate proceedings. The association undertakes to reimburse the city a 150 euro fee and 1 100 euros in legal costs. The court ordered a further 150 euros in fees refunded to the city from the budget after entry into force.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

2. Terminate the proceedings in the case.

Case 2-16-123Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 19 korteriühistu · 80021192

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeQuorum and repeat meetingsApartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the boardAuthority and representation

How it started · editorial summary

The court deemed the convening demand received once there was a reasonable opportunity to read it; the board missed the deadline in the articles and the members’ meeting was permissible.

27.07.2016 · JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-123/38Read act

Separate act page

Members convening a meeting after the board missed its deadline

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Kangelaste pr 19 korteriühistu · 80021192

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: XX — claimant and former board member; Association — defendant

How it started · editorial summary

The members’ right to convene the meeting depended on receipt of their request and expiry of the board’s deadline under the articles.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Kangelaste pr 19 korteriühistu (now — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 19 korteriühistu). XX sought to invalidate the decisions of the repeat general meeting of Kangelaste pr 19 korteriühistu on 21 December 2015 concerning replacement of the board and election of the audit committee. The court accepted delivery of the request through the mailbox because the recipient had a reasonable opportunity to read it. The board failed to convene the meeting within the two weeks set by the articles. The members could therefore convene it themselves and hold a repeat meeting after a lack of quorum.

Outcome of this decision

The claim was dismissed. The court found no defect in convening the meeting that would render its decisions void. XX bears the costs and was ordered to reimburse the association 770 euros.

A checked extract in this language is not yet available.

03.04.2017 · JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-16-123/49Read actAppeal03.04.2017

Separate act page

Kangelaste pr 19: meeting decision upheld and challenge dismissed

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ Kangelaste pr 19 · 80021192

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and appellant – XX; Defendant – KÜ Kangelaste pr 19

How it started · editorial summary

The court deemed the convening demand received once there was a reasonable opportunity to read it; the board missed the deadline in the articles and the members’ meeting was permissible.

The dispute and the court’s decision

XX challenged the apartment association Kangelaste pr 19’s general meeting decision of 21 December 2015, which expressed no confidence in the former board and elected a new board and audit committee. The claimant argued that members had no right to convene the meeting themselves because the board had already held a meeting on 8 December. The court dismissed the claim and the appeal was dismissed. The key issue was when the members’ demand to convene a meeting was received. The court found that it was placed in board member XX’s mailbox on 15 November 2015, giving a reasonable opportunity to read it. Receipt of a legally significant communication did not require proof that it was actually read. The two-week period under the articles therefore expired on 29 November, and the 8 December meeting was late. The members acquired the right to convene a meeting on 9 December and a repeat meeting on 21 December. No audit committee had previously been elected. If the claimant asserted otherwise, it was for the claimant to prove this; the court did not have to gather such information on its own initiative. The court found no grounds for treating the decision as contrary to good morals or void for other reasons, meaning without legal effect from adoption. The objection to the new board member’s authority was rejected: the member had been elected at the challenged meeting, and the board’s register entry does not itself create that authority. Following examination, the meeting decision was found valid. The first-instance costs award of 770 euros was upheld; a further 280 euros for the appeal was awarded to the association against XX.

Outcome of this decision

Leave the judgment of 27 July 2016 unchanged and dismiss the appeal. XX bears appeal costs; the association is awarded 280 euros. The meeting decision of 21 December 2015 was not set aside.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

2. Dismiss the appeal.

Case 2-15-11354Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 42 korteriühistu · 80054903

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeQuorum and repeat meetings

How it started · editorial summary

A repeat meeting also required notice under the charter.

16.11.2015 · JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-11354/18Read actFirst instance16.11.2015

Separate act page

Notice period for a repeat meeting

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Tallinna mnt 42 · 80054903

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — owner XX; defendant — KÜ Tallinna mnt 42

How it started · editorial summary

A repeat meeting also required notice under the charter.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Tallinna mnt 42 (now — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 42 korteriühistu). XX challenged point 5 of KÜ Tallinna mnt 42’s meeting decision of 7 May 2015 confirming decisions from 2002–2014. The first meeting failed for lack of a quorum. The charter required a repeat meeting within a month and 14 days’ notice. The court rejected the argument that the monthly limit allowed a meeting even the next day: the notice period still applied. The challenged point was declared void, meaning legally ineffective. The alternative request to set aside the same point was refused because the primary remedy had already been granted. The lawfulness of every earlier decision was not determined separately. Costs remained with the parties, who waived appeal.

Outcome of this decision

Challenged point declared void; alternative request refused and costs left with the parties.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

3. Leave procedural costs with the parties themselves.

Case 2-10-37634Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 2a korteriühistu · 80245744

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeBudget, management plan and ratesDocuments and informationInspection and copies of documentsReporting and review of expenditureApartment association bills, payments and debtsPayment accounting and set-off

How it started · editorial summary

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.

11.06.2012 · Judgment (kohtuotsus)Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-10-37634/39Read actAppeal11.06.2012

Separate act page

Apartment association Narva Sõbralik: three meeting decisions invalidated because documents were provided late

Judgment (kohtuotsus) · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Korteriühistu Narva Sõbralik · 80245744

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant XX; appellant; defendant – Korteriühistu Narva Sõbralik; other party to the appeal; defendant’s representative XX – representative of the association

How it started · editorial summary

The dispute and the court’s decision

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.

Outcome of this decision

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.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

1. Allow the appeal in part.

Case 2-10-51755Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu · 80189721

HeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesApartment association bills, payments and debtsBills and justification of chargesApartment association meetings and decisionsBudget, management plan and ratesConvening meetings and advance notice

How it started · editorial summary

Claimant XX challenged charges and meeting decisions on payments. The association relied on the time limit for challenging decisions and reported correcting the heating calculation.

05.08.2011 · JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-10-51755/12Read actFirst instance05.08.2011

Separate act page

Puškini tn. 12: challenge to decisions and charges dismissed after expiry of the three-month time limit

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Puškini tn.12 korteriühistu · 80189721

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant XX — owner of non-residential premises; claimant’s adviser XX; defendant — Puškini tn.12 korteriühistu; association’s management board member XX; association’s contractual representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

Claimant XX challenged charges and meeting decisions on payments. The association relied on the time limit for challenging decisions and reported correcting the heating calculation.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Claimant XX, the owner of non-residential premises, challenged charges made by the apartment association Puškini tn. 12. The claimant referred to an overstated floor area used for heating charges, payments for rent, advertising and waste collection, and the lack of an opportunity to examine meeting decisions in time. In an amended claim, the claimant sought to have decisions from 2003, 2005 and 2008, and the charges based on them, set aside. The association objected that the claimant was its member, could participate in management and obtain documents, and had missed the time limit for challenging decisions. It also reported recalculating heating charges according to the area of the property. The court examined these positions and noted that, under the law applied at the time, decisions on management of the building were binding on association members. The claimant argued that the minutes had only been received with the defence in December 2010. The court found it unproven that the claimant had learned of the disputed decisions only then: the claimant had known about the disputed payments by January 2010, but formulated the specific request to set aside the decisions in January 2011. The court concluded that the three-month time limit for bringing the challenge had expired. By its judgment of 5 August 2011, the court dismissed the claim in full. Claimant XX was left to bear both the claimant’s own costs and the association’s costs; their monetary amount was not determined in the operative part. The court dismissed the claim because the time limit had expired and the decisions remained binding; it did not separately examine the correctness of every monthly charge. It referred specifically to the recalculation of heating charges confirmed by an invoice. This decision does not describe the subsequent course of the case.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss the claim challenging the charges in full. Leave the defendant association’s costs to claimant XX and the claimant’s own costs to the claimant. The operative part does not determine the monetary amount of reimbursement.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

Dismiss […] the claim against Puškini tn. 12 korteriühistu […] in full. […] Leave the claimant’s procedural costs entirely to the claimant.

Case 2-08-63694Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 2a korteriühistu · 80245744

Repairs and shared propertyFaçade, windows and balconiesOrganisation and funding of repairsApartment association bills, payments and debtsBills and justification of chargesDebt claimsApartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeBudget, management plan and ratesLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

How it started · editorial summary

An incorrect allocation method did not invalidate the entire repair decision.

10.12.2010 · JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-08-63694/26Read actAppeal10.12.2010

Separate act page

Repair contributions and allocation by area

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Korteriühistu Narva Sõbralik · 80245744

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and appellant — Korteriühistu Narva Sõbralik; defendant and respondent on appeal — XX; claimant representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

An incorrect allocation method did not invalidate the entire repair decision.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Korteriühistu Narva Sõbralik (now — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 2a korteriühistu). Korteriühistu Narva Sõbralik claimed earmarked facade and balcony repair contributions and late-payment interest from XX. The defendant disputed equal per-apartment contributions and the decision-making procedure. The county court refused the claim. The circuit court agreed that allocation contravened law and the charter but held only that part void, meaning legally ineffective: area-based allocation replaces it, while the decision to collect funds survives. Discussion of the management plan covered repairs and funding; defective notice was not established. Work and expenditure were proved. The share-based calculation exceeded the claim, so only the amount claimed was allowed and the refusal overturned. XX bears costs in both instances. A 2010 meeting decision provided an additional basis. The judgment does not endorse the original equal allocation or establish later payment.

Outcome of this decision

Refusal overturned and claim allowed within its limits; XX bears costs in both instances.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

Allow the appeal.