Skip to decisions
Žuk — ANTON и JELENA

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

Reset all
Case 2-20-16829Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kraavi tn 14 korteriühistu · 80280195

Damage and insuranceInsurance payment and insurer’s claim

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer and association agreed that the insurer would no longer maintain its damages demand and would reimburse 720 euros in costs. The court approved the terms and terminated the case.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-20-16829/30Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kraavi tn 14: insurer waived its demand by agreement and undertook to reimburse association costs

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kraavi tn 14 korteriühistu · Swedbank P&C Insurance AS · 80280195 · 11269248

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Swedbank P&C Insurance AS; interested person — Narva linn, Kraavi tn 14 korteriühistu; participants’ representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer and association agreed that the insurer would no longer maintain its damages demand and would reimburse 720 euros in costs. The court approved the terms and terminated the case.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Swedbank P&C Insurance AS and the apartment association Narva linn, Kraavi tn 14 ended a damages dispute by settlement. The insurer waived its demand and undertook to reimburse the association 720 euros in costs. The ruling does not describe the original cause or amount of damage or the association’s detailed objections. The outcome therefore does not explain which party was right on the merits of that damage. It confirms an agreed end to the dispute. The parties submitted their agreement on 9 December 2022 and requested approval. The insurer confirmed that it no longer had any complaints or claims against the association in this dispute. It undertook to transfer the association’s costs within five working days after entry into force. The agreement states 600 euros plus 120 euros in tax, totalling 720 euros. The court found no obstacles to approval and terminated proceedings. Each participant bears costs not provided for in the agreement. The court ordered a 25 euro refund to the insurer, half the fee. The parties agreed to exclude appeals, and the court stated the ruling was not appealable. The costs amount is set by agreement, rather than a separate examination of every expense and the original claim’s circumstances. The duty to transfer 720 euros does not confirm actual payment to the association. The fee refund from the budget is likewise ordered, not shown as already performed.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement on the insurer’s waiver of the demand and absence of claims against the association. The insurer reimburses the association 720 euros in costs within five working days after entry into force. Terminate proceedings and leave other costs to participants. Refund the insurer a 25 euro fee.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
II. Terminate proceedings on Swedbank P&C Insurance AS’s application against Narva linn, Kraavi tn 14 korteriühistu for damages.
First instance
Case 2-21-9037Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 16 korteriühistu · 80061872

Damage and insuranceCause and proof of damageParking and groundsUse of shared land

How it started · editorial summary

The car damage was accepted, but the court found no fault by the association in installing the warning post. The damages claim was dismissed.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-21-9037/19Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Võidu prospekt 16: court refused compensation after a collision with a warning post

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 16 korteriühistu · 80061872

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant XX – driver; defendant – Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 16 korteriühistu; parties’ representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

The car damage was accepted, but the court found no fault by the association in installing the warning post. The damages claim was dismissed.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court dismissed driver XX’s claim against the apartment association Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 16 for damage after striking a warning post in the courtyard. It accepted the car damage and its link to the collision but found that the association had exercised the required care. The claimant sought the 190-euro insurance excess, the part of repairs paid by the owner, plus accrued and continuing late-payment interest. XX alleged that the metal post installed beside a collapsed section of surfacing was hard to see and did not meet warning-sign requirements. The association objected that the post warned of a dangerous spot, had reflective strips and was visible in advance. The court considered the association’s liability as manager of the shared grounds. It separately examined property damage, causation, unlawfulness and fault. The fact that the post damaged the car did not complete that examination. From the photographs, the court considered the post sufficiently tall and visibly marked with reflective tape. A driver proceeding carefully through the courtyard could have seen it and stopped. In this case, the court considered that the rules cited by the claimant did not require a standard warning sign at that location. It found the association’s conduct consistent with expected care and did not establish the fault required for recovery. The court also refused to obtain courtyard video footage: the collision was undisputed, footage would not show visibility from inside the car and the association stated it no longer existed. The judgment of 4 March 2022 dismissed the entire claim and imposed costs on the claimant, with separate quantification. The court did not deny the car damage; refusal concerns the conditions for the association’s liability.

Outcome of this decision

Refuse to obtain the video recording and dismiss XX’s damages claim against the association in full. The claimant bears costs, to be quantified separately after the judgment becomes final.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Dismiss XX’s claim against Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 16 korteriühistu for damages in full.
First instance
Case 2-16-17050Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 19 korteriühistu · 80054978

Apartment association board and managementLiability of governing bodiesRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairsDamage and insuranceCause and proof of damage

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought the cost of cable relocation from a former board member as damages, citing missing approvals. On rehearing, the court refused the claim, considering necessity and benefit to the building separately from formal decision-making.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-17050/69Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

A board member’s liability for relocation of electrical cables

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 19 korteriühistu · 80054978

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 19 korteriühistu; Defendant, former board member — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought the cost of cable relocation from a former board member as damages, citing missing approvals. On rehearing, the court refused the claim, considering necessity and benefit to the building separately from formal decision-making.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 19 korteriühistu sought 7200 euros from former board member XX for moving electrical cables from the facade to the basement. It alleged that the works were not properly approved and served only certain owners. XX relied on unsafe old cables and the interests of the whole building. An earlier award had been reversed on appeal and the case remitted. The court examined witnesses, the cables’ condition, photographs and connection records. It found the need for works due to unsafe wiring proved and noted the benefit to the shared building’s safety. Separate connections to premises did not themselves exclude common interests. However, the court also said that time between ordering and performance allowed the matter to be put to a general meeting, and board discussion did not replace required documentation. The court considered the existence of damage and benefit from the works separately. It did not automatically equate all expenditure with proved loss merely because decision-making was inadequately documented. The claim was dismissed. Costs were imposed on the association, with 1995 euros awarded to XX for legal assistance under the operative part. Actual payment of awarded costs was not established.

Outcome of this decision

The association’s 7200 euros damages claim was dismissed. It bears costs and must pay XX 1995 euros under the operative part. This does not mean the court approved the formal handling of every decision.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Dismiss the claim. […] Order the claimant to bear the procedural costs.
First instance
Case 2-16-13377Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 44 korteriühistu · 80146002

Contracts and servicesWorks contracts and designQuality and acceptance of worksRepairs and shared propertyRoof and atticDamage and insuranceLeaks and floodingDamage caused during repairsAmount of compensation

How it started · editorial summary

After the contractor’s failed repair, the association engaged another contractor and sought reimbursement.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-13377/118Read act

Separate act page

Defective roof works: recovery of rectification costs

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 44 korteriühistu · OÜ IMHOTEPKOMP · OÜ Alakki · 80146002 · 11482887 ·

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and customer — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 44 korteriühistu; Defendant and contractor — OÜ IMHOTEPKOMP

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought 1500 euros from a contractor for defective replacement of roof pipes. The court found defects in both the original and warranty works and awarded the full amount claimed.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 44 korteriühistu, additionally named Korteriühistu KANGELASTE 44, sought 1500 euros from OÜ IMHOTEPKOMP for rectifying defective work. The contractor replaced 17 roof pipes; the work was accepted and paid for. Leaks later appeared. The association notified the defects and the contractor began warranty repairs, but the association stopped them as technically unsuitable and engaged OÜ Alakki. The court assessed an audit, court-appointed expert evidence, testimony and photographs. It found unsuitable components and inadequate sealing that allowed moisture beneath the roof covering. Video of proper technique on another site did not prove it had been used on this building. Both the original work and attempted repair were found deficient. The contractor had been given an opportunity to remedy defects. Absence of the formal record required by the contract did not negate written notices and repairs begun. However, the court excluded the part repaired by another firm before the contractor was notified. Later rectification and audit costs supported compensation. The claim was granted within the 1500 euros requested. Procedural costs were imposed on the contractor, with their amount to be fixed separately.

Outcome of this decision

OÜ IMHOTEPKOMP must pay the association 1500 euros within the amount claimed. It bears its own and the association’s procedural costs, the latter to be fixed separately. Permission to appeal was granted.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Grant the claim in full. […] The court grants permission to appeal.
First instance
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-16-13377/130Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Kangelaste 44: contractor must reimburse correction of roof defects

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Korteriühistu KANGELASTE 44; Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 44 korteriühistu · Osaühing IMHOTEPKOMP · 80146002 · 11482887

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – Korteriühistu KANGELASTE 44; Defendant and appellant – Osaühing IMHOTEPKOMP

How it started · editorial summary

After the contractor’s failed repair, the association engaged another contractor and sought reimbursement.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The circuit court upheld the award of 1 500 euros against Osaühing IMHOTEPKOMP in favour of the apartment association KANGELASTE 44 for remedying roof defects, changing the reasons in part. Korteriühistu KANGELASTE 44 sought 1 500 euros in damages from Osaühing IMHOTEPKOMP after replacement of 17 roof ventilation pipes. The association alleged that the contractor damaged roofing around the pipes, causing leaks, and attempted repairs with bitumen mastic did not cure the defects. Another company was engaged for repairs and a building audit commissioned. The contractor argued that it was not given sufficient time or opportunity to remedy the work and that the expenses were excessive. The county court granted the claim. Tartu Ringkonnakohus upheld the 1 500-euro award, clarifying its legal reasoning and assessment of the amount. Expert materials and witness testimony supported defects in both the original work and attempted repair. Failed remedial work was a fundamental breach of contract. The association therefore did not have to give the contractor yet another additional deadline and could engage another contractor to remedy the defects. The circuit court found 1 143,84 euros for remedial work and 360 euros for the audit justified. The total established was 1 503,84 euros, but the association sought only 1 500 euros and that was awarded. Another company’s later, cheaper estimate did not prove the actual cost of the relevant repairs. Appeal costs were imposed on IMHOTEPKOMP; the county court will quantify them after the judgment becomes final. The judgment confirms the contractor’s compensation obligation, rather than an actual payment to the association.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss IMHOTEPKOMP’s appeal and uphold the association’s 1 500-euro award. Amend the reasoning in part. The contractor bears appeal costs, to be quantified separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Dismiss the appeal and leave the Viru Maakohus judgment of 11 March 2019 unchanged. Amend the county court judgment’s reasoning in part.
Appeal
Case 2-16-12373Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Joala tn 11 korteriühistu · 80189885

Damage and insuranceFireCause and proof of damageAmount of compensationRepairs and shared propertyRoof and attic

How it started · editorial summary

The court found the association liable for damage during firefighting but accepted only part of the loss claimed.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-12373/71Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Joala 11 Narva: partial compensation for damage caused during firefighting

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Korteriühistu Joala 11 Narva · If P&C Insurance AS · 80189885 · 10100168

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — owner XX; Defendant — Korteriühistu Joala 11 Narva; Third party on the defendant’s side — If P&C Insurance AS

How it started · editorial summary

The court found the association liable for damage during firefighting but accepted only part of the loss claimed.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court partly granted owner XX’s claim against the apartment association Joala 11 Narva and awarded 2 647,72 euros for apartment damage during firefighting. Owner XX sought compensation from Korteriühistu Joala 11 Narva for water damage during extinguishing an attic fire on 15 January 2014. The final claim was 18 186,32 euros. The association disputed liability and the amount of loss. Insurer If P&C Insurance AS participated on its side as a third party without an independent claim. After the appeal court set aside an earlier dismissal, the county court reconsidered the case. It found the association the proper defendant: maintaining common property and ensuring safety were its duties. From witness testimony and Rescue Board materials, it concluded that one attic entrance had been unlocked. In the court’s view, this allowed outsiders in and led to the fire during whose extinguishing the apartment was damaged. However, the claimant did not prove the entire amount sought. The assessments submitted were made more than a year after the fire and could not reliably separate firefighting damage from earlier defects. The court preferred inspection materials prepared soon after the event and the corresponding restoration estimate. The claim was partly granted, with 2 647,72 euros awarded against the association. Each participant bears its own court costs. The court applied the law in force when the damage arose. Use of the decision in a new dispute should take account of subsequent legislative changes and the specific circumstances.

Outcome of this decision

Partly grant the claim: award XX 2 647,72 euros against Korteriühistu Joala 11 Narva. Each participant bears its own court costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. The parties shall bear their own procedural costs in full.
First instance
Case 2-19-5478Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kraavi tn 12 korteriühistu · 80310766

Damage and insuranceDamage caused during repairsAmount of compensationCause and proof of damage

How it started · editorial summary

The new application repeated a dispute already pending; the pecuniary part was also covered by an earlier final judgment.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-19-5478/4Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kraavi 12: repeated apartment damage claim refused admission

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kraavi tn 12 korteriühistu · 80310766

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – XX; Named defendant – Narva linn, Kraavi tn 12 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The new application repeated a dispute already pending; the pecuniary part was also covered by an earlier final judgment.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court refused to accept XX’s repeated apartment damage claim against the apartment association Kraavi tn 12, citing a pending dispute and an earlier judgment on the pecuniary demand. Claimant XX sought 6 676 euros in pecuniary and 500 euros in non-pecuniary damages from Narva linn, Kraavi tn 12 korteriühistu. He alleged that the apartment was damaged during repairs and promised remedial work was not done. Viru Maakohus was deciding whether to accept this claim. The court found that the same claimant had already made a demand against the same association on the same circumstances in another case. Although acceptance there had previously been refused because defects were unremedied, that ruling was not yet final and its appeal period had not expired. The identical dispute therefore remained pending, preventing acceptance of a new claim. The court also referred to a final judgment in an earlier dispute about the same damage: pecuniary compensation had been refused upon a finding that damage had not been caused. That result prevents resubmission of the same pecuniary demand. For non-pecuniary harm, the court explained the special conditions for compensation where an item of particular personal importance is destroyed or lost. A demand to repair a damaged item does not itself replace proof of those conditions. The new claim was refused; all costs were left with the claimant, with none reimbursable. The ruling awards no monetary compensation and does not reopen the earlier pecuniary dispute on its merits.

Outcome of this decision

Refuse to accept the claim. The claimant bears costs; none are reimbursable.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. The claimant shall bear the litigation costs. There are no reimbursable litigation costs.
First instance
Case 2-18-18427Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kraavi tn 12 korteriühistu · 80310766

Damage and insuranceAmount of compensationCause and proof of damage

How it started · editorial summary

After partial reversal of the earlier refusal, the court allowed time to clarify the non-pecuniary demand, but the papers were not corrected.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-18-18427/19Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kraavi 12: non-pecuniary damage claim refused admission after defects remained unremedied

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kraavi tn 12 korteriühistu · 80310766

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – XX; Named defendant – Narva linn, Kraavi tn 12 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

After partial reversal of the earlier refusal, the court allowed time to clarify the non-pecuniary demand, but the papers were not corrected.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court again refused to accept XX’s non-pecuniary claim against the apartment association Kraavi tn 12: after an extension, the claimant did not clarify the amount and circumstances of the harm. Claimant XX sought pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages totalling 7 668 euros from Narva linn, Kraavi tn 12 korteriühistu. He linked the demand to damage to the apartment during repairs and disagreed with the earlier dismissal. The court initially refused to accept the new claim, citing a final judgment between the same parties. The circuit court set that refusal aside only as regards non-pecuniary damage and remitted acceptance of that part for reconsideration. The procedural ruling therefore did not reopen the pecuniary part. After remittal, Viru Maakohus required a clear statement of the specifically non-pecuniary amount, the association’s particular acts or omissions, the nature of the harm and the evidence. The total demand did not show which portion concerned non-pecuniary compensation. The court also explained the special conditions for such compensation where an item is destroyed or lost and warned of the consequences of not remedying defects. At the representative’s request, the deadline was extended to 1 April 2019, but no clarifications arrived. The court refused acceptance and ordered return of the application and attachments after the ruling becomes final. Costs were left with the claimant; none were reimbursable. This ruling addressed defects in the application, rather than establishing on the merits that no non-pecuniary harm existed.

Outcome of this decision

Refuse to accept the claim because defects were not remedied; return the application and attachments after the ruling becomes final. The claimant bears costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. Return the statement of claim and attachments to the claimant after this ruling becomes final.
First instance
Case 2-17-5112Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Rahu tn 28a korteriühistu · 80158560

Damage and insuranceLeaks and floodingCause and proof of damageInsurance payment and insurer’s claimWater and seweragePipes, risers and sewerageAccess for inspection and repairAmount of compensation

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer’s claim was granted; the judgment copy contains an operative part without circumstances or reasons.

· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohtu tsiviilkolleegium · Appeal · № 2-17-5112/13Read act

Separate act page

Rahu 28A: a leaking riser and the association’s response to denied access

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohtu tsiviilkolleegium · Appeal

AAS BTA Baltic Insurance Company Eesti filiaal · KORTERIÜHISTU RAHU 28A · 11223507 · 80158560

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and appellant — AAS BTA Baltic Insurance Company Eesti filiaal; defendant — KORTERIÜHISTU RAHU 28A

How it started · editorial summary

Denied access required examination of the association’s further steps to maintain the common riser.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KORTERIÜHISTU RAHU 28A (now — Narva linn, Rahu tn 28a korteriühistu). AAS BTA Baltic Insurance Company Eesti filiaal sought reimbursement of 1218 euros and 79 cents paid for water damage from KORTERIÜHISTU RAHU 28A. The parties did not dispute the leak from a valve on the common hot-water riser or the insurance payment. The association relied on owner XX having denied access during earlier repairs and disputed the amount of loss. The first-instance court dismissed the claim. The appellate court reversed and remitted the case to the preliminary stage. Having no right to enter without consent does not itself establish compliance with all duties to maintain common property. Further measures needed examination, including convening a meeting, taking decisions or other steps to address denied access. Failure to act may give rise to liability; the first-instance court also failed to justify excusing a possible breach. Important documents required Estonian translations even in simplified proceedings. The parties must have an opportunity to present evidence with the burden of proof properly allocated. If a breach is established, the compensation claim could have passed to the insurer following payment; association liability does not exclude liability of an owner who breached duties. The amount of loss had not been assessed and requires examination. The appeal was allowed in part; the first-instance court will allocate costs according to the new outcome.

Outcome of this decision

The dismissal was reversed and the case remitted to the preliminary stage; breach and the amount of loss remain to be established.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Allow the appeal in part.
Appeal
· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-5112/26Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Rahu 28a: association ordered to pay insurer 1 218,79 euros

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

AAS BTA Baltic Insurance Company Eesti filiaal · Narva linn, Rahu tn 28a korteriühistu · 11223507 · 80158560

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – AAS BTA Baltic Insurance Company Eesti filiaal; Defendant – Narva linn, Rahu tn 28a korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer’s claim was granted; the judgment copy contains an operative part without circumstances or reasons.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Viru Maakohus granted the claim by AAS BTA Baltic Insurance Company Eesti filiaal against Narva linn, Rahu tn 28a korteriühistu and awarded the insurer 1 218,79 euros in damages. It also awarded 425 euros in litigation costs against the association, which must bear its own costs as well. The judgment was made under the simplified procedure and gives the result without an account of the circumstances or reasons. The operative part describes recovery as a recourse claim: the insurer’s demand to be reimbursed for the damage amount. The text does not show what happened, what evidence was examined or what the association argued in response. The specific basis for its liability is therefore not set out here. The court did not grant separate leave to appeal but explained that an appeal was possible for substantial and clear errors in law or assessment of evidence. A participant first had to notify the court of an intention to appeal within ten days of service of the operative part. The court would then supplement the judgment with an account of the circumstances and reasons. The judgment does not establish actual payment of the awarded sums.

Outcome of this decision

Award the insurer 1 218,79 euros in damages and 425 euros in litigation costs against the association. The association bears its own costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Grant the claim.
First instance
Case 2-16-12373Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

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

How it started · 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

How it started · 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.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Remit the civil case to Viru Maakohus for fresh examination.
Appeal
Case 2-15-13634Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

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

How it started · 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.

· 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

How it started · 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.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. Allow the appeal in part.
Appeal
Case 2-14-62363Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 40 korteriühistu · 80180370

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

How it started · 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

How it started · 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.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Terminate the proceedings in civil case No 2-14-62363.
First instance
Case 2-15-16043Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kraavi tn 12 korteriühistu · 80310766

Damage and insuranceLeaks and floodingDamage caused during repairsCause and proof of damageRepairs and shared propertyRoof and attic

How it started · editorial summary

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

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-16043/43Read act

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

How it started · 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.

A checked extract in this language is not yet available.

First instance
· 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

How it started · 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.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Dismiss the appeal.
Appeal