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 2-17-7308Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kosmonaudi tn 7 korteriühistu · 80146060

Documents and informationInspection and copies of documents

How it started · editorial summary

The court approved an agreement: XX confirmed receipt of the association’s documents and absence of complaints. The case was terminated.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-7308/17Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Dispute over association documents ended by an agreement to provide them

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Korteriühistu KOSMONAUDI 7 · 80146060

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant XX; defendant – apartment association; parties’ representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

The court approved an agreement: XX confirmed receipt of the association’s documents and absence of complaints. The case was terminated.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court approved the agreement between XX and the apartment association KOSMONAUDI 7 concerning documents and terminated the case. XX sought access to documents. The agreement covers documents on repair work and related tendering, hiring staff, installing an ancillary waste-storage structure and waste collection services. It also states that the association had already provided the listed documents on paper and that the claimant confirms performance of the terms and has no complaints against the association. The court considered the agreement permissible: it was consistent with the law and good morals, did not infringe public or participant interests, and was enforceable. Proceedings ended without a decision on the merits of the claim. Each party bears its own costs; no reimbursement by one party to the other was ordered. The parties agreed a shorter appeal period of one day from service of the ruling. The court explained that, after termination, the same claim against the same defendant on the same grounds could not be brought again.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement and terminate proceedings. The claimant confirmed receipt of the documents and absence of complaints; each bears its own costs and no reimbursement by one party to the other was ordered.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Terminate proceedings in civil case No. 2-17-7308.
First instance
Case 2-14-56990Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Soldina tn 4 korteriühistu · 80175156

Contracts and servicesPayment, advance payments and refundsDocuments and informationReporting and review of expenditureApartment association board and managementHandover of documents and affairs

How it started · editorial summary

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

· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-14-56990/31Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Tiimani 4: accounting fees and notice of termination

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ Tiimani 4 · 80175156

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and appellant — accounting service provider XX; defendant — KÜ Tiimani 4

How it started · editorial summary

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

The dispute and the court’s decision

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.

Outcome of this decision

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.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
4. Allow XX’s appeal.
Appeal
Case 2-14-9883Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 4 korteriühistu · 80145451

Parking and groundsUse of shared landDocuments and informationInspection and copies of documentsApartment association meetings and decisions

How it started · editorial summary

The appeal succeeded in part: the provision charging 5 euros per page was declared void, while the general parking rules remained in place.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-9883/28Read act

Separate act page

Shared parking rules and charges for paper copies

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Korteriühistu Kangelaste 4 · 80145451

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: XX — claimant, association member; Association — defendant

How it started · editorial summary

General parking rules differ from allocating individual spaces. The later appeal upheld dismissal concerning parking but declared the 5-euro-per-page copy charge void; reimbursement of reasonable actual costs remains possible.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Korteriühistu Kangelaste 4 (now — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 4 korteriühistu). XX challenged two decisions of Korteriühistu Kangelaste 4: parking rules and a charge of 5 euros per page for paper copies. The court distinguished allocating specific spaces from general rules allowing use of any free space subject to markings and prohibitions, finding this ordinary use of common land. It held that the copy charge did not prevent inspection or electronic access. Later, on 29 January 2016, Tartu Ringkonnakohus declared the 5-euro-per-page copy-charge provision void as unjustifiably high, while upholding dismissal of the challenge to the parking rules. Reasonable actual copying costs may be reimbursable. The 140-euro costs award was set aside; each party bears its own costs in both instances.

Outcome of this decision

Initially, the claim was dismissed and XX was ordered to pay the association 140 euros in costs. On 29 January 2016, Tartu Ringkonnakohus declared the 5-euro-per-page copy-charge provision void while upholding dismissal concerning the parking rules. The 140-euro award was set aside; each party bears its own costs in both instances.

A checked extract in this language is not yet available.

First instance
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-14-9883/49Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Kangelaste 4: copying fee struck down, general parking rules upheld

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ Kangelaste 4 · 80145451

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and appellant – owner XX; Defendant – KÜ Kangelaste 4

How it started · editorial summary

The appeal succeeded in part: the provision charging 5 euros per page was declared void, while the general parking rules remained in place.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Owner XX challenged two items in the association’s general meeting decision of 5 December 2013: parking rules and a fee of 5 euros for each page of a document copy. The first-instance court rejected both claims. The appeal court changed the judgment on copying fees. The parking rules did not allocate specific spaces to owners but laid down general requirements for parking and drivers’ conduct. The court treated them as ordinary management of shared property, for which a majority vote was sufficient. The refusal to invalidate those rules was upheld. The court considered the charge of 5 euros per page unjustifiably high and contrary to good morals: for a request involving many pages, it could impede access to information about the association’s management. It declared the corresponding meeting decision item void, meaning legally invalid. This does not mean that the association must supply every copy free of charge. The court allowed a reasonable per-page fee and a separate one-off fee to cover other copying costs. The previous costs award of 140 euros against XX was set aside; each party was left to bear its own costs at both levels.

Outcome of this decision

Set aside the dismissal of the copying claim and declare item 5 of the meeting decision of 5 December 2013 void. Uphold the rest of the judgment. Each party bears its own costs at both levels.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Allow the appeal in part.
Appeal
Case 2-13-8500Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Korteriühistu XX

Documents and informationInspection and copies of documentsApartment association board and managementAuthority and representationParking and groundsConstruction of parking facilitiesUse of shared land

How it started · editorial summary

The court distinguished general procedures for handling requests from a specific refusal to provide necessary information.

· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-13-8500/72Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Board responses to requests and equal access to information

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Korteriühistu XX ·

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: XX — claimant and appellant, association member; Association XX — defendant

How it started · editorial summary

The court distinguished general procedures for handling requests from a specific refusal to provide necessary information.

The dispute and the court’s decision

XX challenged association XX’s decisions on parking and handling requests. Following remittal from the Supreme Court, Tartu Ringkonnakohus reconsidered only the requests provision; the parking issue had already been resolved. The court stressed members’ equal entitlement to necessary information and assessment of each request on its substance. The board nevertheless need not provide a written response to every communication unrelated to legitimate management interests. Here, documents had been supplied, maintenance questions explained at a meeting, and authorising the chair to respond alone did not infringe the member’s rights.

Outcome of this decision

The appeal was dismissed. The ultimate rejection of the claim was upheld on revised legal grounds. This does not authorise arbitrary denial of information: an unjustified refusal in a specific instance may be challenged. XX bears the first-instance and appellate costs.

A checked extract in this language is not yet available.

Appeal
Case 2-14-52077Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 7 korteriühistu · 80183693

Documents and informationInspection and copies of documentsContracts, loans and bank documentsExplanations of charges and paymentsApartment association bills, payments and debtsBills and justification of charges

How it started · editorial summary

Claimant XX and the apartment association Pähklimäe 7/11 agreed on provision of documents and a loan payment of no more than 7,32 euros per month. The court approved the agreement and terminated the case.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-52077/33Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Court approved provision of loan documents and a monthly payment limit

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Pähklimäe 7/11 · 80183693

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant XX — sought documents and determination of the loan payment.; Defendant KÜ Pähklimäe 7/11 — assumed obligations under the agreement.

How it started · editorial summary

Claimant XX and the apartment association Pähklimäe 7/11 agreed on provision of documents and a loan payment of no more than 7,32 euros per month. The court approved the agreement and terminated the case.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Claimant XX asked the court to require the apartment association Pähklimäe 7/11 to provide loan documents and determine the monthly payment. At the hearing on 14 July 2015, the parties agreed on a list of documents and explanations. The association undertook to provide annex 1 to the loan agreement, the minutes of the meeting of 16 June 2008 with the participant list, a statement of payments to Danske Bank AS from 10 July 2008 to 25 June 2015, and explanations of the calculation of loan payments. The parties confirmed the claimant’s right to pay no more than 7,32 euros per month towards the loan. A change in how loan repayment was shown on monthly invoices was also noted. The court found the terms lawful and enforceable, approved the settlement and terminated the case. Each party bears its own costs. After termination, the same parties cannot bring the same claim again; an unperformed agreement can be enforced through a bailiff. Performance of the agreement is not confirmed.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement on providing loan documents and explanations and on the claimant’s right to pay no more than 7,32 euros per month. Terminate the case; leave each party to bear its own costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Terminate the proceedings in civil case No 2-14-52077.
First instance
Case 2-14-10992Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Linda tn 1 korteriühistu · 80180424

Documents and informationInspection and copies of documentsReporting and review of expenditureContracts, loans and bank documentsExplanations of charges and payments

How it started · editorial summary

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.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-10992/22Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Access to documents refused: court found the request insufficiently specific and the interest unproven

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

OÜ ROBURINK · KÜ Linda 1 · 10611746 · 80180424

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant OÜ ROBURINK — former premises owner and association member.; Defendant KÜ Linda 1 — holder of the documents requested.

How it started · editorial summary

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 dispute and the court’s decision

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.

Outcome of this decision

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.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Dismiss in full Osaühing ROBURINK’s claim against Korteriühistu Linda 1 to inspect documents.
First instance
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.

· Judgment (kohtuotsus)Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-10-37634/39Read actAppeal

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

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.

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.
Appeal
Case 2-10-22500Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu · 80189721

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsBills and justification of chargesApartment association meetings and decisionsDocuments and informationInspection and copies of documents

How it started · editorial summary

After being required to remedy deficiencies in the claim, claimant XX submitted a new text, but the specific decisions challenged and the separate claims remained unclear.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-10-22500/5Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Puškini tn. 12: unspecified claims to set aside decisions and obtain documents not accepted for proceedings

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Puškini tn. 12 korteriühistu · 80189721

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant XX — person who filed the claim; defendant — Puškini tn. 12 korteriühistu; defendant’s representative XX — management board member

How it started · editorial summary

After being required to remedy deficiencies in the claim, claimant XX submitted a new text, but the specific decisions challenged and the separate claims remained unclear.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Claimant XX brought a claim against the apartment association Puškini tn. 12 challenging decisions and charges for maintenance, rent, advertising and waste collection. The claimant also asked the court to obtain documents so that further claims could then be formulated. The court required the deficiencies in the claim to be remedied by clarifying its subject matter, grounds and evidence. A revised claim was submitted, but it did not identify the specific decisions, meeting dates or circumstances showing an infringement of rights. The court noted that several claims could be joined, but each had to be expressed clearly. A request for documents has a separate subject matter and does not replace the need to formulate claims seeking to set aside decisions. By its order of 9 July 2010, the court refused to accept the application for proceedings because the deficiencies had not been remedied. Costs were left to claimant XX; the documents were to be returned after the order entered into force. The court explained that a returned application is regarded as never having been filed or pending before the court. This act did not resolve the disputed charges or the validity of the general meeting’s decisions. The procedural refusal does not establish a debt or mean that the unspecified claims were examined and dismissed on their merits.

Outcome of this decision

Refuse to accept the claim for proceedings against the apartment association Puškini tn. 12, send the order to claimant XX and leave the costs to the claimant. Return the claim and its attachments after the order enters into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Refuse to accept claimant XX’s statement of claim […] for proceedings. […] 3. Claimant XX shall bear the procedural costs in civil case No 2-10-22500. […] 4. Once the ruling enters into force, return the claim and its attachments to claimant XX.
First instance