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 2-16-16599Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu · 80189721

Contracts and servicesTenancy and leaseHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesApartment association bills, payments and debtsBills and justification of chargesLimitation of claimsRepairs and shared propertyBasement, stairwell and shared roomsDebt claimsApartment association meetings and decisionsBudget, management plan and rates

How it started · editorial summary

The dispute concerned the basis for extra charges for the shared staircase and the floor area used to charge heating for non-residential premises.

Related prepared acts from this case are also shown.

· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-16-16599/17Read act

Separate act page

Stairwell and heating charges: judgment reversed and case remitted

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Osaühing Brainella · Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu · 10294480 · 80189721

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Defendant and appellant — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu; Claimant and respondent on appeal — Osaühing Brainella

How it started · editorial summary

The association appealed a declaration that the company owed no stairwell and heating debt. The appellate court reversed for inadequate examination of the basis and calculation and remitted the case.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Osaühing Brainella sought a declaration that it owed Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu nothing for use and heating of a separated part of a stairwell. Its claim was clarified to 1354.51 euros. It disputed a 15.98 euros monthly charge and additional floor area used for heating. The first-instance court granted the claim and the association appealed. Tartu Ringkonnakohus found the claim’s scope, the charges’ legal basis and their amount inadequately examined. Absence of a proved lease did not yet exclude a possible charge under owners’ resolutions on common-property use. Those resolutions should not simply have been disregarded. The amended claim’s limits and burden of proof also required clarification. The court rejected the association’s limitation objection to the declaration claim itself. Its position might have a different significance for its monetary claim, but neither debt nor its absence was finally established. The 16.01.2018 judgment was reversed and the case remitted to the same court, with costs to follow the rehearing’s result. Success on appeal was not an award or cancellation of the disputed sum.

Outcome of this decision

The association’s appeal was granted. Viru Maakohus’s judgment of 16.01.2018 was reversed and the case remitted. The basis and amount of charges require further examination; no final debt was established. The first-instance court will decide costs according to the further outcome.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Grant the appeal. […] Reverse Viru Maakohus’s judgment of 16 January 2018. Remit the case to Viru Maakohus for rehearing.
Appeal
· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-16599/37Read act

Separate act page

Charges for part of a stairwell and heating: the basis of charges and later reversal

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Osaühing Brainella · Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu · 10294480 · 80189721

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — Osaühing Brainella; Defendant — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

Osaühing Brainella challenged charges for using and heating part of a stairwell. The first-instance court declared only that no lease existed; the appellate court later granted all claims, reversing the refusals and the costs allocation.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Osaühing Brainella sought declarations against Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu that no lease existed and no payment was owed for part of a stairwell. It also sought heating calculations based only on 88.4 m² and a declaration that 285.63 euros was not owed for 28.02.2011–31.01.2016. Invoices included a monthly charge of 15.98 euros. The case was being reheard after reversal and remittal of an earlier judgment. The court found no evidence of a lease and granted that declaration. However, additional charges could arise from owners’ resolutions governing use of common property rather than a contract. Calling a charge rent did not change its legal basis. The company did not deny exclusive use of part of the stairwell. The relevant resolutions had not been invalidated, and the court found no grounds of nullity. It therefore refused a declaration of no payment duty. It also rejected the requested heating-area declaration and the related claim that 285.63 euros was not owed. This judgment did not itself award that sum for enforcement. The association must bear 25% of the company’s costs and the company 75% of the association’s costs, with amounts determined separately. Later, on 26 February 2021, Tartu Ringkonnakohus reversed the refusal of the remaining claims and the costs allocation, granting the claim in full. It held that the earlier tariffs applied only in the relevant financial years and that no basis for the additional charge after 2010 had been proved. It declared that the disputed charge was not payable, heating for 28.02.2011–31.01.2016 was payable on an area of 88.4 m², and the heating debt of 285.63 euros did not exist as at 31.01.2016. The association bears costs at both levels, with amounts to be fixed separately.

Outcome of this decision

Initially, the court declared that no lease existed and rejected the remaining claims; it did not award 285.63 euros, and costs were allocated 25%/75%. On 26 February 2021, Tartu Ringkonnakohus reversed the refusals and the costs allocation: it declared that the disputed charge was not payable, heating for 28.02.2011–31.01.2016 was payable on an area of 88.4 m², and the heating debt of 285.63 euros did not exist as at 31.01.2016. The association bears costs at both levels, with amounts to be fixed separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Declare that OÜ Brainella and Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu have no obligations arising from a rental or lease agreement.
First instance
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-16-16599/43Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Brainella: association decisions did not support additional stair-use and heating charges

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Osaühing Brainella · Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu · 10294480 · 80189721

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and appellant – Osaühing Brainella; Defendant – Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The dispute concerned the basis for extra charges for the shared staircase and the floor area used to charge heating for non-residential premises.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The circuit court granted Osaühing Brainella’s claim in full, declaring no obligation to pay the disputed rent and no additional heating debt. Osaühing Brainella sought a declaration that it did not have to pay rent or the disputed extra heating charge to the apartment association at A. Puškini tn 12. The company owned non-residential premises. The association charged for use of a separated stair section and calculated heating over a larger area. The company objected that no lease existed and heating should be charged for its premises’ area of 88,4 m². The association argued that the extra charges were based on general meeting decisions and use of the separated staircase expressed consent to the charge. On rehearing, Viru Maakohus confirmed there was no contract but found a payment duty based on meeting decisions. The company appealed dismissal of the rest of its demands. Tartu Ringkonnakohus agreed that an owners’ majority can in principle decide ordinary management of shared property. However, these particular decisions had been adopted with the 2004, 2005 and 2010 management plans and applied within those respective years. The association did not establish a basis for the disputed charges in later years. The circuit court granted the claim in full. It declared no lease relationship or rent obligation and that heating from 28 February 2011 to 31 January 2016 was payable on an area of 88,4 m². The company did not owe 285,63 euros in heating debt as at 31 January 2016. All litigation costs at both levels were imposed on the association, to be quantified by the county court after finality. No demand to demolish the partition was decided in this case.

Outcome of this decision

Grant Brainella’s claim in full: no lease relationship or rent payment duty exists; heating for the stated period is calculated on 88,4 m²; no debt of 285,63 euros is owed. The association bears costs at both levels, to be quantified separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2.1. Grant the claim by osaühing Brainella against Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu.
Appeal
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 2-18-130679Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 9 korteriühistu · 80021803

Contracts and servicesWorks contracts and designQuality and acceptance of worksPayment, advance payments and refundsRepairs and shared propertyFaçade, windows and balconies

How it started · editorial summary

The design fee dispute depended on the agreed window count, fire safety and the client’s acceptance of the result.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-18-130679/23Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

A. Daumani 9: designer’s claim for remaining payment dismissed

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

OÜ NARVA EHITUSPROJEKT · Narva linn, A. Daumani tn 9 korteriühistu · 11002901 · 80021803

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant, designer — OÜ NARVA EHITUSPROJEKT; Defendant, client — Narva linn, A. Daumani tn 9 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The design fee dispute depended on the agreed window count, fire safety and the client’s acceptance of the result.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court dismissed OÜ NARVA EHITUSPROJEKT’s claim for the remaining facade design payment from the apartment association A. Daumani tn 9 because the work did not meet agreed terms. OÜ NARVA EHITUSPROJEKT sought 2 016 euros outstanding for a facade reconstruction design, late-payment interest and 40 euros in recovery costs from Narva linn, A. Daumani tn 9 korteriühistu. The association had paid a 504 euro advance but refused the final design and ended the contract. The disputed term was the number of basement windows: the client insisted on 15, while the designer invoked fire safety requirements and supplied a version with more. The court found 15 windows an agreed essential term despite the number not being separately stated in the signed contract. This followed from the initial design, correspondence and explanations. The design also had to meet mandatory safety requirements. The first version lacked the necessary smoke extraction analysis. The later version took fire safety requirements into account but departed from the agreed window count without client consent. Neither version therefore complied with the contract. Administrative approval alone did not replace compliance with contractual terms. The association objected in time and refused acceptance. The court treated its termination notice as lawful withdrawal from the contract for breach. The designer also withheld permission to use the work until full acceptance, so there was no basis to pay for a separately delivered part. The claim was dismissed in full, with costs allocated to the designer and the amount set later. The court did not assess another provider’s design or the lawfulness of its approvals.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss OÜ NARVA EHITUSPROJEKT’s claim in full. The claimant bears all court costs, with the amount determined after entry into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Dismiss OÜ NARVA EHITUSPROJEKT’s debt claim against Narva linn, A. Daumani tn 9 korteriühistu.
First instance
Case 2-17-10653Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 33 korteriühistu · 80082986

Water and seweragePipes, risers and sewerageRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairsContracts and servicesWorks contracts and designApartment association meetings and decisions

How it started · editorial summary

The circuit court examined the reopening application instead of leaving it unexamined, but found no grounds to reopen the case.

Related prepared acts from this case are also shown.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-10653/23Read act

Separate act page

Non-attendance: an association dispute left unexamined

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 33 korteriühistu · 80082986

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — XX; Defendant — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 33 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

After XX did not attend, the claim against the association was left unexamined. The appellate court later changed only the ruling on restoration: it examined and refused that request without deciding the meeting-resolution dispute on its merits.

The dispute and the court’s decision

XX sued Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 33 korteriühistu, formerly Korteriühistu Punane Maja, to invalidate meeting resolutions of 10.05.2017. The preserved subsequent order states that the disputed resolutions concerned a contract to replace water pipes, requiring owners to provide telephone numbers, and a contract for legal services. After XX and their representative did not attend, the court granted the association’s request to leave the claim unexamined. XX objected that the representative had not received a separate summons and the case could not be disposed of this way. The court found that XX had personally received the summons before notifying a new representative. Documents, including the summons, were then made available to the representative electronically. The court considered notice proper. The hearing record confirmed the association’s request, so the court had not acted of its own initiative. No sufficient excuse for absence or request to hear the case without XX was established. The objection was rejected. The restoration request was left unexamined as filed before a written order and its service. The claim itself was also left unexamined, not dismissed on its merits. Costs were imposed on XX, to be fixed separately. Later, on 3 September 2018, Tartu Ringkonnakohus changed only the ruling on the request to restore proceedings: the request had to be examined, but was refused. The claim remained unexamined, the other parts of the order were upheld, and XX bears the appeal costs.

Outcome of this decision

Initially, the procedural objection was refused and the restoration request and claim were left unexamined. On 3 September 2018, Tartu Ringkonnakohus changed only the restoration ruling: the request was examined but refused. The other parts of the order, including leaving the claim unexamined, were upheld. XX bears appeal costs; the substantive validity of the meeting resolutions was not decided.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Leave XX’s application of 17 May 2018 to restore proceedings unexamined.
First instance
· RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-17-10653/27Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 33: reopening application examined, but case not reopened

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 33 korteriühistu · 80082986

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and appellant — XX; Defendant — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 33 korteriühistu (also called Korteriühistu Punane Maja)

How it started · editorial summary

The circuit court examined the reopening application instead of leaving it unexamined, but found no grounds to reopen the case.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Tartu Ringkonnakohus changed the procedural outcome but did not reopen XX’s case against Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 33 korteriühistu. Instead of leaving the reopening application unexamined, it examined and rejected it. The main claim remained unexamined. The claimant challenged meeting decisions of 10 May 2017 on replacing water pipes using an unnamed company, owners providing telephone numbers, and a contract with a lawyer. The court initially granted the claim by default but reopened proceedings after the association applied to set aside the default judgment (kaja). The claimant and representative then failed to attend the hearing on 15 May 2018. At the association’s request, the court left the claim unexamined. The claimant requested reopening, arguing that the representative had not been sent a separate summons and therefore did not know about the hearing. The claimant also denied that the association had requested leaving the claim unexamined. The association opposed the appeal, arguing among other things that it was late. The circuit court found that the summons was sent to the claimant before the court was notified of the representative. The claimant received it personally, and on the day the representative notified the court of their authority, the representative obtained electronic access to all materials, including the summons. In those circumstances, the court did not have to send the same summons again. The association’s request to leave the claim unexamined was recorded in the minutes. The claimant did not substantiate a valid reason for absence or an inability to report it in time. However, the court found it wrong to refuse to examine the reopening application merely because it had been filed before the ruling was put in writing: the participant already knew the decision announced at the hearing. It remedied the defect itself, examined the application and refused reopening. The remainder was upheld and appeal costs allocated to the claimant; the county court will determine the amount separately. The meeting decisions’ validity was not determined on the merits by this ruling.

Outcome of this decision

Set aside the ruling of 25 May 2018 only insofar as it left the reopening application unexamined. Issue a new ruling in that part refusing reopening. Uphold the remainder; XX bears appeal costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. Uphold the county court’s ruling in all other respects.
Appeal
Case 2-16-129462Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 47b korteriühistu · 80145356

Contracts and servicesWorks contracts and designQuality and acceptance of worksPayment, advance payments and refundsRepairs and shared propertyFaçade, windows and balconiesApartment association bills, payments and debtsPayment accounting and set-offLate-payment interest and consequences of delayOrganisation and funding of repairs

How it started · editorial summary

The appeal court rejected the association’s repair reimbursement claim and retained its obligation to pay the contractor, adding late-payment interest. Evidence of defects at the alleged time and notification was insufficient.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-129462/71Read act

Separate act page

Kangelaste 47b and Mirstart OÜ: defective works, costs and set-off

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Mirstart OÜ · KÜ Kangelaste 47b · 11234391 · 80145356

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and counterclaim defendant — Mirstart OÜ; defendant and counterclaimant — KÜ Kangelaste 47b

How it started · editorial summary

Defects justified withholding payment and recovery of repair costs, with the final result determined by set-off.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Kangelaste 47b (now — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 47b korteriühistu). Mirstart OÜ sought the outstanding price of construction works and late-payment interest from KÜ Kangelaste 47b. The association counterclaimed for the cost of remedying defects. The cases were joined after proceedings on earlier default judgments were reopened. The works included renewal of the plinth and paving and installation of canopies. The court found the defective cladding proved by photographs: tiles had fallen off extensively soon after handover. Acceptance did not prevent reliance on defects. The documents as a whole showed timely knowledge by the contractor, which failed to remedy them within a reasonable time. Third-party repair costs of 5544 euros were found necessary and reasonable. Lawful withholding of the price balance was temporary; the court did not find a price reduction or effective withdrawal from the contract. Once the cost claim was allowed, the basis for withholding ended, so principal of 3039.27 euros* was upheld. Late-payment interest of 683.21 euros was refused because lawful withholding was not late performance. Further late-payment interest was also refused because the mutual claims were set off. The court allowed the counterclaim and applied set-off, awarding the association 2500 euros* against Mirstart OÜ. Each party bears its costs. Payment of that award was not established.

Outcome of this decision

The principal claim was allowed for 3039.27 euros* without late-payment interest; following the counterclaim and set-off, 2500 euros* was awarded to the association against Mirstart OÜ.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
5. Each party shall bear its own costs.
First instance
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-16-129462/83Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Kangelaste 47b: appeal court rejected association’s repair correction costs and awarded payment to contractor

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ Kangelaste 47b · Mirstart OÜ · 80145356 · 1123439

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: contractor Mirstart OÜ – claimant and defendant to the joined demand, appellant; apartment association – customer, defendant and claimant on the joined demand, appellant; parties’ representatives and expert XX

How it started · editorial summary

The appeal court rejected the association’s repair reimbursement claim and retained its obligation to pay the contractor, adding late-payment interest. Evidence of defects at the alleged time and notification was insufficient.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The circuit court allowed Mirstart OÜ’s appeal and dismissed the apartment association Kangelaste 47b’s appeal. After review, the association was ordered to pay the contractor 3 039,27* euros in outstanding fees, 1 017,61 euros in accrued late-payment interest and continuing statutory late-payment interest. The association’s claim for the cost of correcting works was dismissed. The contractor repaired the plinth and lintel and installed two canopies. The association alleged that facing panels began detaching and that the contractor had been notified but did not remedy the defects. It hired another company and sought reimbursement, taking account of the unpaid part of the original work. The contractor disputed the defects at the stated time and proper notification. The first-instance court granted the contractor’s monetary claim without interest, recognised the association’s claim and set them off. The association appealed only the allocation of costs; the contractor appealed the award to the association and refusal of interest. The circuit court assessed the evidence differently. Photographs from September 2016 did not establish the state of works in summer 2015: by the time of photography, the new contractor could already have started dismantling. A copy of a letter did not prove receipt. Board minutes without the contractor representative’s signature proved neither participation nor notification of defects. A new paid contract for filling joints also did not prove an agreement to remedy defects in the former work. It contained no such reference. The association had not proved defects at the alleged time, notification or a deadline for remedy; the contractual procedure for engaging an expert had also not been followed. The set-off and earlier award in favour of the association were therefore set aside. Costs at both levels were imposed on the association, to be quantified separately by the county court. Dismissal of the association’s claim concerns proof of the conditions for liability, rather than an established absence of any defects in the repairs.

Outcome of this decision

Grant Mirstart OÜ’s claim and dismiss the association’s claim. Award 3 039,27* euros in principal, 1 017,61 euros in accrued late-payment interest and statutory late-payment interest on principal from the judgment date until payment against the association. Allow the contractor’s appeal and dismiss the association’s. The association bears costs at both levels, to be quantified separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
4. Allow Mirstart OÜ’s appeal.
Appeal
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 2-16-129736Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Malmi tn 10 korteriühistu · 80175972

Contracts and servicesWorks contracts and designPayment, advance payments and refundsRepairs and shared propertyRoof and atticOrganisation and funding of repairs

How it started · editorial summary

The extra 500 euros was not awarded: in this case the signed invoice confirmed receipt of the document, rather than agreement to increase the price.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-16-129736/36Read act

Separate act page

Malmitare and OÜ Hiolen: an invoice did not prove an extra-payment agreement

Judgment · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

OÜ Hiolen · KÜ Malmitare · 12530714 · 80175972

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — OÜ Hiolen; defendant — KÜ Malmitare

How it started · editorial summary

A signature acknowledging receipt did not prove agreement on extra materials and price.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Malmitare (now — Narva linn, Malmi tn 10 korteriühistu). OÜ Hiolen sought 500 euros from KÜ Malmitare for additional roofing materials. The main roof-repair contract had been performed: the works were accepted and the agreed price paid. The dispute concerned a separate extra charge. The contractor treated the association representative’s signature on the invoice as confirmation of a contract amendment; the association said it only acknowledged receipt. The court agreed with the association. The contract prescribed a written amendment procedure which had not been followed. The acceptance record, final invoice, correspondence and meeting minutes did not establish an additional agreement. The documents and disputed invoice identified the same roofing material. The signature on the invoice was insufficient to prove a new obligation to pay for materials. The claim was dismissed. Hiolen bears its own and the association’s costs; the latter will be quantified separately after finality. The court granted permission to appeal.

Outcome of this decision

The 500-euro extra charge was refused; OÜ Hiolen bears costs, with the association’s costs quantified separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Dismiss OÜ Hiolen’s claim.
First instance
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-16-129736/45Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Malmitare: contractor did not prove agreement on extra payment for roofing material

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

OÜ Hiolen · KÜ Malmitare · 12530714 · 80175972

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and appellant – OÜ Hiolen, contractor; Defendant – KÜ Malmitare, customer

How it started · editorial summary

The extra 500 euros was not awarded: in this case the signed invoice confirmed receipt of the document, rather than agreement to increase the price.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Tartu Ringkonnakohus dismissed OÜ Hiolen’s appeal and upheld the refusal to award an additional 500 euros for roofing material against KÜ Malmitare. The court found that the contractor had not proved the association’s consent to increase the price or enter a separate additional-payment agreement. The contractor had repaired the roof and alleged that the parties agreed to buy higher-quality material for an additional charge. It relied on an invoice dated 4 November 2014 signed by representatives of both parties and sworn testimony from its representative. It argued that the signatures confirmed a contract amendment. The association objected that it had fully paid the agreed price of 28 378,12 euros for works and materials. It said the signature on the additional invoice confirmed only receipt of the document. There was no agreement to increase the price, and the final invoice and acceptance certificate retained the former price. The circuit court agreed with the association. The contractual estimate bound the contractor. To demand more, it had to prove a change to the total price or a separate agreement to cover the increase. The contract required a written amendment procedure: a written proposal by one party and a written reply by the other within five working days. The court did not see expressed consent to amend the contract in the disputed invoice; a note about agreement between the parties was insufficient. Neither the association’s conduct nor the contractor representative’s testimony established a separate agreement. Dismissal of the claim remained in force. Appeal costs were imposed on OÜ Hiolen; the county court will quantify them after the judgment becomes final. The judgment concerns proof of this specific extra charge and does not establish that a signature on any invoice always has the same meaning.

Outcome of this decision

Leave the Viru Maakohus judgment of 29 September 2017 unchanged and dismiss OÜ Hiolen’s appeal. The contractor bears appeal costs; the county court will quantify them after the judgment becomes final.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
The county court shall determine the monetary amount of litigation costs when the judgment becomes final.
Appeal
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
Case 2-14-20708Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 19 korteriühistu · 80054978

Damage and insuranceLeaks and floodingCause and proof of damageAmount of compensationRepairs and shared propertyRoof and attic

How it started · editorial summary

The need for repairs did not establish the cause and amount of new loss from the particular leak.

· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-14-20708/51Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Puškini tn 19: the link between damage and a roof leak was not proved

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Puškini tn 19 Korteriühistu · 80054978

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and appellant — owner XX; defendant — Puškini tn 19 Korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The need for repairs did not establish the cause and amount of new loss from the particular leak.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Puškini tn 19 Korteriühistu (now — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 19 korteriühistu). Owner XX sought compensation from Puškini tn 19 Korteriühistu for damage attributed to a roof leak. The first-instance court dismissed the claim. The appellate court upheld that decision: damage in the alleged circumstances, its amount and its causal link to the association’s conduct were not proved. Inspection records established a need for repairs, but not when or why the damage arose. Witness accounts conflicted. Earlier damage had not been shown to have been remedied; comparison of inspections did not establish deterioration caused by the alleged later leak. Nor was it proved that the water had actually come through the roof. New annotations on an earlier record did not establish those missing facts. The court separately explained that a damages claim does not pass automatically with an apartment under association-membership rules. However, the transfer agreement could be interpreted as assigning the claim. That did not remove the need to prove the loss itself. The appeal was dismissed and XX was ordered to pay the association 378 euros in appellate costs.

Outcome of this decision

The dismissal was upheld and the appeal refused; the association was awarded 378 euros in appellate costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Leave the judgment of Viru Maakohus of 3 May 2016 unchanged.
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