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 2-14-62722Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 42 korteriühistu · 80054903

HeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesChanges to or disconnection from heatingApartment association bills, payments and debtsBills and justification of chargesApartment association meetings and decisionsBudget, management plan and ratesDebt claims

How it started · editorial summary

The association and XX ended two opposing claims by agreement. Settlement of their mutual demands was made conditional on payment.

· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-14-62722/55Read act

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 42: heating charges, rates and clarification of claims

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ Tallinna mnt 42 · 80054903

Entry into force has not been reverified

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

How it started · editorial summary

A majority resolution does not replace all owners’ agreement on a different allocation of expenses.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Tallinna mnt 42 (now — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 42 korteriühistu). Owner XX disputed maintenance and heating charges with KÜ Tallinna mnt 42. The association relied on meeting resolutions imposing an additional charge for each individual room with altered heating equal to 50% of the apartment’s total heating cost and setting the area used for charging. The owner sought recalculation or a declaration that no debt existed. The first-instance court dismissed the claim, relying in part on unchallenged meeting resolutions. The appellate court reversed and remitted. After repeated amendments, it remained unclear which claims the first-instance court had decided. The court should have discussed the available legal protection and explained that compulsory recalculation as formulated had no independent substantive basis; a declaration of no debt was possible. Allocating common expenses otherwise than in proportion to ownership shares requires all owners’ consent. A meeting resolution without unanimity does not replace that agreement; failure to challenge it in time did not resolve this issue. Evidence and the existence of debt must be examined on rehearing. The appeal was allowed in part, with costs to be allocated by the first-instance court according to the final outcome.

Outcome of this decision

The judgment was reversed and the case remitted to clarify the claims and examine the debt; no specific recalculation was ordered.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Allow the appeal in part.
Appeal
· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-62722/89Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 42: mutual maintenance and heating dispute ended by a 5 000-euro agreement

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 42 korteriühistu · 80054903

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: apartment association – claimant in the debt claim and defendant in the other claim; XX – debt defendant and claimant in the charges dispute; parties’ representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association and XX ended two opposing claims by agreement. Settlement of their mutual demands was made conditional on payment.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court approved the agreement between Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 42 korteriühistu and XX to end two opposing claims concerning maintenance and heating. XX undertook to pay the association the agreed amount within three months after the agreement enters into force. The case involved the association’s debt claim and XX’s claim against it concerning charges. The ruling gives no detailed calculations or objections. After payment, the parties regard mutual demands for the agreed period as resolved: both unpaid invoices and possible recalculations in XX’s favour. The court checked the agreement’s permissibility and enforceability and terminated proceedings. It did not separately establish the correctness of every previous charge. The hearing was cancelled and each party bears its own costs; partial court fee refunds will be decided by separate rulings. This ruling establishes neither performance of the agreement nor refund of the fees.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement for XX to pay the association the agreed amount within three months after the agreement enters into force. After payment, mutual demands for the agreed period are settled. Terminate proceedings and cancel the hearing; each bears its own costs. Court fee refunds are decided separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Terminate proceedings in civil case No. 2-14-62722.
First instance
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 2-16-119304Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Uusküla tn 17 korteriühistu · 80054990

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating charges

How it started · editorial summary

The default judgment awarded debt and interest; it did not separately determine the lawfulness of the alterations.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-119304/8Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Majak: outstanding charges and further late-payment interest awarded by default

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Majak · 80054990

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — KÜ Majak; Defendant — owner XX

How it started · editorial summary

The default judgment awarded debt and interest; it did not separately determine the lawfulness of the alterations.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Majak (now — Narva linn, Uusküla tn 17 korteriühistu) sought payment of debt from owner XX, linking it in part to charges for additional heating following a change to the layout. This describes the association’s position: the act contains no detailed examination of the defendant’s objections. The original payment order application was transferred from Pärnu Maakohus to Viru Maakohus because the documents could not be served. Principal, accrued interest and further interest were sought in ordinary claim proceedings. The claim documents were not served personally on the defendant. XX did not respond in time, and the court treated the claimant’s factual assertions as admitted under the default procedure. The claim was granted by default. Debt, accrued late-payment interest and further interest of 0,07% per day on principal until repayment were awarded against XX. Costs of 151,64 euros were also awarded. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security. The act does not separately determine the lawfulness of the alterations or the outcome of any municipal inspection.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the claim by default: award debt, accrued interest, further interest of 0,07% per day on principal until repayment and costs of 151,64 euros against XX. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
6. The default judgment is immediately enforceable.
First instance
Case 2-15-13995Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Joala tn 5 korteriühistu · 80158985

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsObligations of multiple ownersBills and justification of chargesHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating charges

How it started · editorial summary

The e-toimik record of service on the representative determined the appeal period; the court rejected the asserted later date.

Related prepared acts from this case are also shown.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-13995/16Read act

Separate act page

Co-owner’s obligation to pay building and heating charges

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Joala 5 · 80158985

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Association — claimant; XX — defendant, co-owner; XX — other co-owner, not joined as a third party

How it started · editorial summary

Pointing to another user of the apartment did not release the co-owner from building charges.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Joala 5 (now — Narva linn, Joala tn 5 korteriühistu). The court awarded KÜ Joala 5 unpaid heating, gas equipment maintenance and building maintenance charges against XX. XX argued that another co-owner used the services and was the association member. The court explained that selecting one co-owner to participate in the association does not release the others from charges. The unchallenged charging arrangement under the association’s decisions remained binding; actual use of the apartment was a matter between the co-owners.

Outcome of this decision

The claim was granted and the debt awarded against XX. The court did not decide the other co-owner’s liability; part-payment would reduce the outstanding common obligation. XX was also ordered to reimburse the association’s fee of 75 euros and representation costs of 255 euros.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Grant the claim.
First instance
· Court orderTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-15-13995/21Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Joala 5: appeal returned after the deadline

Court order · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Korteriühistu Joala 5 · 80158985

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Appellant, first-instance defendant — XX; Respondent, first-instance claimant — Korteriühistu Joala 5

How it started · editorial summary

The e-toimik record of service on the representative determined the appeal period; the court rejected the asserted later date.

The dispute and the court’s decision

In the debt dispute between Korteriühistu Joala 5 (now — Narva linn, Joala tn 5 korteriühistu) and XX, the first-instance court granted the claim and awarded costs on 03.02.2016. XX appealed. Tartu Ringkonnakohus refused to admit the appeal and returned it because it arrived after the deadline. The court found that the judgment was served on XX’s representative through the public e-toimik system on 03.02.2016. The thirty-day period began on 04.02.2016 and ended on 04.03.2016, while the appeal arrived on 06.03.2016. The representative’s asserted receipt date of 05.02.2016 was rejected as inconsistent with e-toimik records. The established date of service on the representative was decisive. Under the rule applied by the court, the returned appeal is treated as not filed. This act did not review the debt claim on its merits on appeal and does not establish actual recovery. An interlocutory appeal to Riigikohus within 15 days after service was explained, generally through a sworn advocate. The result of any such further application is unknown.

Outcome of this decision

Admission of the appeal against the judgment of 03.02.2016 was refused as late; the appeal was returned and is treated as not filed. The appellate court did not review the debt dispute on the merits. The subsequent outcome of the case is not established.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Refuse to admit XX’s appeal against the judgment of Viru Maakohus of 3 February 2016 and return the appeal to XX.
Appeal
Case 2-14-56170Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 7 korteriühistu · 80183693

Water and seweragePipes, risers and sewerageHeatingTemperature and heating qualityRepairs and shared propertyAlterations to layouts and shared propertyDamage and insurance

How it started · editorial summary

Later termination of representation did not change the appeal deadline.

Related prepared acts from this case are also shown.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-14-56170/58Read act

Separate act page

Limitation of a claim to restore a hot-water return pipe

Judgment · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

KÜ Pähklimäe 7/11 · 80183693

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: XX — claimant, owner; Association — defendant

How it started · editorial summary

The outcome rests on limitation rather than a merits decision that removing the pipe was lawful.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Pähklimäe 7/11 (now — Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 7 korteriühistu). XX sought a declaration that removal of a pipe was unlawful and an order requiring KÜ Pähklimäe 7/11 to restore it. As clarified, the claim concerned a hot-water return pipe rather than a heating pipe. XX linked the 2008 works to a fall in indoor temperature noticed in January 2009. On the association’s objection, the court applied a three-year limitation period from knowledge of the damage and responsible party. The claim filed in August 2014 was time-barred, with no interruption or suspension established.

Outcome of this decision

The claim was dismissed as time-barred; no restoration was ordered. This did not decide that the reconstruction was lawful on the merits. XX bears costs, with their amount and recovery for the state reserved for separate orders.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Dismiss the claim.
First instance
· Court orderTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-14-56170/70Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Appeal period after service on a representative

Court order · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ Pähklimäe 7/11 · 80183693

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and appellant — XX; defendant — KÜ Pähklimäe 7/11

How it started · editorial summary

Later termination of representation did not change the appeal deadline.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Pähklimäe 7/11 (now — Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 7 korteriühistu). XX appealed the decision of 13 November 2015 concerning damages against KÜ Pähklimäe 7/11. The circuit court refused to admit the appeal as late. The decision was served on an authorised representative on 16 November; time began the following day and expired at 24:00 on 16 December, at the end of that day, while the appeal arrived on 17 December. Subsequent termination of the representative’s authority did not alter the deadline. The appeal was returned and deemed not filed. No deadline was set to pay the missing fee because refusal of admission would require its refund. The damages claim was not decided on its merits; the type and cause of damage are not disclosed.

Outcome of this decision

Appeal refused admission and returned as out of time.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Refuse to admit the appeal of XX […]
Appeal
Case 2-12-48359Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Suur tn 8 korteriühistu · 80183476

HeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesApartment association meetings and decisionsArticles of association and amendmentsAgenda and minutes

How it started · editorial summary

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.

· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-12-48359/63Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Appeal court upheld the refusal to declare a new heating payment arrangement void

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KORTERIÜHISTU VANA LOSS · 80183476

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and appellant XX – challenged the cost allocation arrangement.; Defendant KORTERIÜHISTU VANA LOSS – defended the meeting decision.

How it started · editorial summary

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 dispute and the court’s decision

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.

Outcome of this decision

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.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
[…] Leave the operative part of the Viru Maakohus judgment of 09 October 2013 unchanged, amending the legal reasoning of the judgment in part.
Appeal
Case 2-14-56479Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 42 korteriühistu · 80054903

HeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesChanges to or disconnection from heatingApartment association bills, payments and debtsBills and justification of chargesApartment association meetings and decisions

How it started · editorial summary

The claimant linked the disputed charges to floor area and changes to heating; the court found the proposed claim insufficient for the stated purpose.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-56479/6Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 42: claim seeking a declaration of no debt was not admitted

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Tallinna mnt 42 KÜ · 80054903

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — XX; Defendant — Tallinna mnt 42 KÜ

How it started · editorial summary

The claimant linked the disputed charges to floor area and changes to heating; the court found the proposed claim insufficient for the stated purpose.

The dispute and the court’s decision

XX sued Tallinna mnt 42 KÜ (now — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 42 korteriühistu), seeking a declaration of no debt and recalculation of management and utility payments. XX alleged that the association used an incorrect floor area and imposed an additional heating charge after changes to the heating system, also referring to board permission. These were the claimant’s allegations, not breaches established by the court. XX supplemented the claim after being given time to clarify it, but the court refused admission because the claim could not achieve its stated purpose. The charges relied on board and general-meeting decisions. XX considered those decisions void, but gave no grounds or supporting facts for nullity and did not wish to challenge them. The court referred to the binding nature of association decisions on management costs and found the claim insufficient for the requested result. No debt was awarded on its merits and no absence of debt was declared: the case was not admitted. All costs were imposed on XX. The court explained the right to apply separately for a refund of the paid state fee. An interlocutory appeal lies to Tartu Ringkonnakohus through Viru Maakohus within 15 days after service, no later than five months after the order. The source establishes no subsequent acts.

Outcome of this decision

Admission of the claim for a declaration of no debt and recalculation was refused. XX bears the costs; the right to request a state-fee refund was explained. Neither the merits of the debt nor unlawful heating charges were established by this act.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Refuse to admit XX’s claim against Tallinna mnt 42 KÜ seeking a declaration that no debt exists.
First instance
Case 2-08-12127Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 10 korteriühistu · 80038614

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesLate-payment interest and consequences of delayHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesRepairs and shared propertyRoof and atticOrganisation and funding of repairs

How it started · editorial summary

The court considered OÜ Filmarinar’s appeal against the Viru Maakohus judgment of 08.05.2012 on the apartment association Puškini 10’s claim for building management costs, earmarked contributions and late-payment interest. The claim after increases was 6 030,64 euros.

· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-08-12127/46Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Apartment association Puškini 10 v OÜ Filmarinar: award reduced, some utility costs unproven

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ Puškini 10 · OÜ Filmarinar · 80038614 · 10294341

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — KÜ Puškini 10; respondent to the appeal; defendant — OÜ Filmarinar; appellant; claimant’s representative XX — association’s statutory representative; defendant’s representative XX — company’s statutory representative

How it started · editorial summary

The court considered OÜ Filmarinar’s appeal against the Viru Maakohus judgment of 08.05.2012 on the apartment association Puškini 10’s claim for building management costs, earmarked contributions and late-payment interest. The claim after increases was 6 030,64 euros.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Puškini 10 sought payment from OÜ Filmarinar for building maintenance, earmarked contributions and services for the period from 1 March 2007 to 1 March 2011. After increases to the claim, the total was 6 030,64 euros. The association relied on an earlier agreement, meeting decisions, invoices and a schedule of charges. The defendant challenged the proof of costs, the documents and contractual grounds, as well as late-payment interest of 0,2% per day. On 8 May 2012, Viru Maakohus granted the claim in full. On the defendant’s appeal, the circuit court decided the case without remitting it to the first instance. It stated that an association member’s duty to pay for management of the building arises from the law; the existence of a document called an agreement does not itself make the relationship contractual. However, grounds for treating the earlier agreement as invalid or terminated had not been properly pleaded or proved in these proceedings. The court found the maintenance charge and earmarked roof repair contributions established by meeting decisions proven. For heating, waste collection and internet, however, the association’s invoices alone were insufficient: the actual costs and their allocation had to be proved. No additional evidence was submitted even after the appeal court invited it. That part of the claim was dismissed. The court also rejected the possibility of increasing by contract the statutory late-payment interest ceiling then applicable of 0,07% per day. The defendant’s allegations of damage were not determined as a counterclaim because no proper counterclaim had been filed. The appeal was partly allowed. The first-instance judgment was set aside, and a new judgment awarded 4 440,26 euros: 2 195,98 euros in principal and 2 244,28* euros in late-payment interest. Costs at both instances were allocated 73% to OÜ Filmarinar and 27% to the association.

Outcome of this decision

Set aside the Viru Maakohus judgment of 08.05.2012. Issue a new judgment partly granting the claim: order OÜ Filmarinar to pay the apartment association Puškini 10 a total of 4 440,26 euros for 01.03.2007–01.03.2011, comprising 2 195,98 euros in principal and 2 244,28* euros in late-payment interest. Partly allow the appeal. Allocate first-instance and appeal costs: 73% to OÜ Filmarinar and 27% to the apartment association Puškini 10.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. Partly allow OÜ Filmarinar’s appeal.
Appeal
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.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-10-51755/12Read actFirst instance

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.
First instance
Case 2-08-53183Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 10 korteriühistu · 80038614

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesWater and sewerageCalculation of water chargesHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesRepairs and shared propertyRoof and atticOrganisation and funding of repairs

How it started · editorial summary

On rehearing, the company’s management-charge debt was proved.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-08-53183/57Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Management charges of a non-residential owner

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Puškini 10 · OÜ Analan Auto · 80038614 · 10339202

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant on rehearing — KÜ Puškini 10; defendant and non-residential owner — OÜ Analan Auto; claimant representative XX; claimant adviser XX; defendant representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

On rehearing, the company’s management-charge debt was proved.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Puškini 10 (now — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 10 korteriühistu). KÜ Puškini 10 claimed management and utility charges from OÜ Analan Auto. On 14 May 2010 Tartu Ringkonnakohus overturned the initial refusal of 18 December 2009 and remitted the case to establish the amount of costs. On rehearing, the court examined the charter, tariff and roof-repair decisions, corrected bills and a consolidated calculation. The company disputed the basis of charges and treated its payments as water payments. The court affirmed the non-residential owner’s common-cost obligations, found the claim proved and found the alleged water payments unsupported by the required evidence. The claim was allowed for 3,114.73* euros. The new reasoning states that no late-payment interest was claimed. Costs were imposed on the company without fixing their amount separately.

Outcome of this decision

3,114.73* euros awarded; company bears costs, whose amount was not separately fixed.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Leave court costs with the defendant.
First instance