Skip to decisions
Žuk — ANTON и JELENA

Narva apartment associations Court decisions

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

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

Subjects and subtopics

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

Additional parameters

Reset all
Case 2-20-11613Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, […] korteriühistu

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeBudget, management plan and ratesApartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the boardRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairs

How it started · editorial summary

The court examined resolutions of a repeat meeting and a later written vote. The appeal court retained the voidness of the management-plan and later election resolutions, removing only a reference to a point on which no decision had been made.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-20-11613/46Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Board replacement and a management plan: different consequences of notice defects

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, […] korteriühistu ·

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: First applicant — XX; Other applicants, elected board members — XX; Person concerned — Narva linn, […] korteriühistu; Person concerned, former board member — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The court examined resolutions of a repeat meeting and a later written vote. The appeal court retained the voidness of the management-plan and later election resolutions, removing only a reference to a point on which no decision had been made.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Two applications concerning an association whose name and code are redacted in the source were examined together. The first applicant, XX, challenged resolutions of a repeat meeting on 03.08.2020 convened by an initiative group after the board refused. Other applicants, XX, challenged written resolutions of 24.02.2021 on another board replacement organised by the former board. The court recognised the initiative group’s right to convene: enough members had submitted a reasoned request and the board had refused. The repeat meeting procedure was regarded as compliant. However, management-plan materials had not been made available in advance and the notice did not explain access to them. Points 3–6 concerning the chair’s remuneration, improvements, repairs and changes to the financial plan were therefore declared void. Challenges to points 1, 7, 8 and 9, including removal of the former board and election of its replacement, were dismissed. The written resolutions of 24.02.2021 were declared void because they were organised by the removed board, and no request to the valid new board had been proved. Each participant was left to bear their own costs. On 28 October 2022, Tartu Ringkonnakohus retained the substantive result and first-instance costs allocation. It removed only the reference to point 2 of the 3 August 2020 meeting from the dismissal, because no resolution had been adopted on that point. Appeal costs were placed on the appellants, including reimbursement of the other group’s costs.

Outcome of this decision

Points 3–6 of the 3 August 2020 resolutions and the 24 February 2021 resolutions were declared void; challenges to points 1, 7, 8 and 9 were dismissed. On 28 October 2022, Tartu Ringkonnakohus removed only the reference to point 2, on which no decision had been made. First-instance costs remain each participant’s own; appeal costs fall on the appellants.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Leave each participant to bear their own procedural costs.
First instance
Case 2-20-14865Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu · 80183173

Apartment association meetings and decisionsApartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the board

Latest prepared act · · № 2-20-14865/49

How it started · editorial summary

The association accepted invalidity of the board composition decision and nullity of the chair’s election. The court approved an agreement with the city rather than deciding the initial arguments in a separate judgment.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 2 · Unprepared stages: 1
· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-20-14865/49Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

A. Puškini tn 65: court approved agreement with city on board decisions

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn · SA Narva Linnaelamu · Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu · · · 80183173

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant – Narva linn through SA Narva Linnaelamu; interested person – Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu; representatives and persons affected by the elections XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association accepted invalidity of the board composition decision and nullity of the chair’s election. The court approved an agreement with the city rather than deciding the initial arguments in a separate judgment.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn and the apartment association Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 settled their dispute about election of the board at the meeting of 11 August 2020. The court approved the agreement and ended the case, retaining the right of appeal. The city applied through SA Narva Linnaelamu and challenged decisions on board composition and the chair. The ruling does not set out detailed initial arguments or objections. Under the agreement, the association recognised as invalid the decision electing the board’s composition and removing other persons from it. Separately, it recognised the chair’s election as void, meaning without legal effect from adoption. These are agreed terms approved by the court; the ruling contains no independent detailed analysis of the grounds for invalidity. The association undertook to reimburse SA Narva Linnaelamu 25 euros in court fees within 10 days after the ruling becomes final. A further 300 euros in city costs was payable under the agreement no later than 28 February 2022, although the ruling itself is dated 3 March 2022. The source does not report whether that payment was made. Participants bear expenses not covered by the agreement themselves. The court checked the settlement’s permissibility and enforceability and approved it. A partial fee refund from the state budget was left to a separate decision. It rejected the parties’ request to exclude appeals, considering that arrangement impermissible in the procedure used. The agreed obligation to reimburse costs does not establish actual payment.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement on invalidity of the board composition election of 11.08.2020 and nullity of chair XX’s election. The association reimburses 25 euros in court fees within 10 days after finality and 300 euros in city costs by the agreed deadline of 28.02.2022. Terminate proceedings. Leave other costs with the participants and decide the fee refund separately. Refuse exclusion of appeals.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Terminate proceedings in civil case No. 2-20-14865.
First instance
· Court orderTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-20-14865/38Read act

Separate act page

Withdrawal of a board-election challenge: authority to represent the city

Court order · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu · Narva linn · Sihtasutus Narva Linnaelamu · 80183173 · · 90003404

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant and appellant against the order — Narva linn; Person concerned — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

Narva challenged an association’s board elections. The first-instance court left the application unexamined after its withdrawal, but the appellate court found the person withdrawing it lacked authority and remitted the case to continue.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn challenged resolutions of Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu made on 11.08.2020 about the board’s membership and selection of its chair. A board member of Sihtasutus Narva Linnaelamu later filed a withdrawal in the city’s name. Viru Maakohus consequently left the case unexamined and imposed costs on the applicant. The city appealed, arguing that the person had no authority to represent it. Tartu Ringkonnakohus distinguished the separate legal entities: being the foundation’s statutory representative did not itself confer authority to represent the municipality. The file contained no city power of attorney, necessary confirmation of representative qualifications or subsequent city approval of the withdrawal. The appellate court reversed the order of 09.08.2021 and remitted the case to the same court to continue. It did not decide the substantive validity of the board elections. It also indicated that the authority of another city representative might require further examination. The first-instance court must determine costs and their amount according to the subsequent result.

Outcome of this decision

The city’s appeal against the order was granted. The order leaving the application unexamined was reversed and the case remitted to Viru Maakohus to continue. The board elections’ substantive validity was not decided; costs depend on the further outcome.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Reverse Viru Maakohus’s order of 9 August 2021 and remit the civil case to the same county court to continue the proceedings. […] Grant the appeal against the order.
Appeal
Not prepared yet

· Case 2-20-14865 · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Case 2-20-11613Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu · 80069939

Apartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the board

How it started · editorial summary

In a board-election dispute, the first-instance court temporarily prohibited new resolutions concerning the board and its members’ powers. The appellate court set the measure aside because the association, as a person concerned, could not request it in these proceedings.

· Court orderTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-20-11613/23Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Ban on new board elections: interim measure set aside

Court order · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu · 80069939

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant and appellant against the order — XX; Person concerned I — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu; Person concerned II — XX

How it started · editorial summary

In a board-election dispute, the first-instance court temporarily prohibited new resolutions concerning the board and its members’ powers. The appellate court set the measure aside because the association, as a person concerned, could not request it in these proceedings.

The dispute and the court’s decision

XX challenged the 03.08.2020 repeat-meeting resolutions of Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu. The association sought appointment of a substitute board member or a ban on meetings until the dispute ended. Instead of banning all meetings, Viru Maakohus prohibited resolutions concerning the board and members’ authority during proceedings. XX appealed. Tartu Ringkonnakohus held that interim protection in these proceedings could be granted at the applicant’s request. The association was a person concerned and had brought no claim of its own, so it was not entitled to request the measure. Nor did public interest justify intervention to protect it without an applicant’s request. The appellate court set the order aside and itself refused the association’s interim-protection application. It did not determine the substantive validity of board elections. It also noted uncertainty about representatives acting under powers of attorney issued by different boards. The first-instance court must examine that issue and requests concerning participation in the case. Costs will be decided with the main case.

Outcome of this decision

The appeal was granted: the prohibition on resolutions concerning the board and its members’ powers was set aside and the association’s interim-protection request refused. This does not decide the elections’ validity. The first-instance court will determine costs in the final ruling.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Grant XX’s appeal against the order. […] The county court will determine the allocation and amount of procedural costs in its final ruling in the case.
Appeal
Case 2-18-1525Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

KORTERIÜHISTU NARVA KOOLIPÕIK · 80180559 · dissolved

Apartment association board and managementReorganisation and liquidation

How it started · editorial summary

The court allowed the liquidator to use the association’s account to refund mistaken payments, with discharge after the payments. The bank had terminated the liquidator’s access after the association’s removal from the register.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-18-1525/7Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Completion of association liquidation and refund of mistaken payments

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KORTERIÜHISTU NARVA KOOLIPÕIK · 80180559

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Entity in liquidation — KORTERIÜHISTU NARVA KOOLIPÕIK; Liquidator — XX; Former board member and records custodian — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The court allowed the liquidator to use the association’s account to refund mistaken payments, with discharge after the payments. The bank had terminated the liquidator’s access after the association’s removal from the register.

The dispute and the court’s decision

In the liquidation of KORTERIÜHISTU NARVA KOOLIPÕIK, liquidator XX reported that the process was complete and the association had been removed from the commercial register. The court had previously appointed the liquidator and required a completion report. It confirmed removal from the register on 29.10.2018. Members mistakenly transferred maintenance payments to the association’s account. The bank terminated the liquidator’s access, so XX sought specific authority to refund the money. The court considered access necessary for returning those mistaken payments. Proceedings were discontinued because liquidation and removal were complete. XX was authorised to use the account to return members’ money, with discharge from liquidator duties after the payments. There were no reimbursable costs. The act does not establish that refunds actually occurred.

Outcome of this decision

Liquidation proceedings were discontinued. The liquidator was authorised to use the association’s account for refunds of mistaken payments and is to be discharged after making them. Actual refunds were not established. There were no reimbursable costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Determine that there are no reimbursable procedural costs in the case.
First instance
Case 2-19-18809Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 43 korteriühistu · 80274757

Apartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the boardApartment association meetings and decisionsQuorum and repeat meetingsArticles of association and amendments

How it started · editorial summary

The board registration dispute depended on which version of the articles determined the meeting quorum.

· RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-19-18809/8Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Kangelaste prospekt 43: refusal to amend board details set aside

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 43 korteriühistu · 80274757

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant and appellant — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 43 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The board registration dispute depended on which version of the articles determined the meeting quorum.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The circuit court set aside refusal to amend board details for the apartment association Kangelaste prospekt 43 and remitted the entry question to the registry department. Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 43 korteriühistu sought removal of two board members’ details and amendment of the end dates for three others. The registry department refused, considering that the deciding meeting lacked the required majority. The association objected that an earlier version of the articles had been applied. Tartu Ringkonnakohus allowed the appeal and remitted the entry question. It found that the 2011 meeting had adopted articles with a quorum, meaning the required attendance, of at least one third of members or representatives. A later meeting changed only the board’s term. Yet the 2016 application attached a text with wider changes, including the former requirement for more than half the members. Attaching that text without a corresponding meeting decision does not make those provisions part of the articles. The circuit court directed that the 2011 one-third rule be used for quorum and that the current version of the articles be established. The registry file also contained powers of attorney in Russian: the applicant must be given time to supply an Estonian translation by a sworn translator. The appeal ruling does not itself amend the board details or complete registration. It sets aside refusal and requires reconsideration using the proper articles and documents. Costs remain with the applicant; because the appeal succeeded, a fee refund may be requested separately.

Outcome of this decision

Allow the appeal and set aside the registry department’s refusal of 8 November 2019. Remit the entry question for reconsideration; this act does not make the entry itself.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Allow Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 43 korteriühistu’s appeal against the ruling.
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 2-15-18123Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 19 korteriühistu · 80021192

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

How it started · editorial summary

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

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-18123/43Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

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

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

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

Entry into force has not been reverified

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

How it started · editorial summary

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

The dispute and the court’s decision

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

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement on nullity of the listed general meeting decisions and terminate proceedings. The association undertakes to reimburse the city a 150 euro fee and 1 100 euros in legal costs. The court ordered a further 150 euros in fees refunded to the city from the budget after entry into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Terminate the proceedings in the case.
First instance
Case 2-17-7218Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 19 korteriühistu · 80021192

Apartment association meetings and decisionsArticles of association and amendmentsApartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the board

How it started · editorial summary

The default judgment declared the general meeting decision of 28 April 2017 void on the matters specified by the court.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-7218/11Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kangelaste pr 19: default judgment declared the board election and articles amendment decision void

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Kangelaste pr 19 · 80021192

Entry into force has not been reverified

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

How it started · editorial summary

The default judgment declared the general meeting decision of 28 April 2017 void on the matters specified by the court.

The dispute and the court’s decision

XX brought a claim against KÜ Kangelaste pr 19 seeking a declaration that a general meeting decision was void. The court granted the claim by default: it declared void the decision of 28 April 2017 electing three board members and approving a new version of clauses 6.4 and 6.5 of the articles of association. Nullity means that the decision has no legal effect from adoption. The judgment contains an operative part and explanations of procedure, but no account of the dispute’s circumstances or reasons. The available text therefore does not establish specific irregularities in convening the meeting or voting. The association must pay XX 500 euros in costs: a 300-euro court fee and 200 euros for legal assistance. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security; actual performance is not confirmed.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the claim by default. Declare void the meeting decision of 28 April 2017 electing three board members and approving new versions of clauses 6.4 and 6.5 of the articles. Award 500 euros in costs against the association. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security.
First instance
Case 2-16-123Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 19 korteriühistu · 80021192

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeApartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the boardAuthority and representationQuorum and repeat meetings

Latest prepared act · · № 2-16-123/49

How it started · editorial summary

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

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 2
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-16-123/49Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Kangelaste pr 19: meeting decision upheld and challenge dismissed

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ Kangelaste pr 19 · 80021192

Entry into force has not been reverified

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

How it started · editorial summary

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

The dispute and the court’s decision

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

Outcome of this decision

Leave the judgment of 27 July 2016 unchanged and dismiss the appeal. XX bears appeal costs; the association is awarded 280 euros. The meeting decision of 21 December 2015 was not set aside.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Dismiss the appeal.
Appeal
· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-123/38Read act

Separate act page

Members convening a meeting after the board missed its deadline

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Kangelaste pr 19 korteriühistu · 80021192

Entry into force has not been reverified

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

How it started · editorial summary

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

The dispute and the court’s decision

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

Outcome of this decision

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

A checked extract in this language is not yet available.

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

Latest prepared act · · № 2-14-56990/31

How it started · editorial summary

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

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 1 · Unprepared stages: 1
· 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
Not prepared yet

· Case 2-14-56990 · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Case 2-15-110882Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

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

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayBills and justification of chargesApartment association board and managementAuthority and representation

How it started · editorial summary

Objections about authority and accounts did not remove the duty to pay established charges.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-110882/16Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Narva Sõbralik: objections to authority and charges

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Narva Sõbralik · 80245744

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — KÜ Narva Sõbralik; defendant — owner XX

How it started · editorial summary

Objections about authority and accounts did not remove the duty to pay established charges.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Narva Sõbralik (now — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 2a korteriühistu). KÜ Narva Sõbralik claimed management charges and late-payment interest from owner XX. The defendant disputed the signatory’s authority, the response deadline, the basis for the charge under the articles and the annual accounts. The court confirmed authority using a registry extract as at filing; the order admitting the claim provided a response period. The provision cited by the defendant concerned members’ rights rather than the disputed charge; other comments about accounts were considered irrelevant to this claim. The court found that the association had provided the necessary evidence and there were no substantive objections to the specific debt or calculation. The claim was allowed in simplified proceedings: debt, accrued late-payment interest, further late-payment interest under the operative part of 0.07% per day on principal from 1 August 2015 until payment, and the state fee were awarded. The court considered the objections filed; this was not a default judgment. Performance was not established.

Outcome of this decision

The claim was allowed after examination of the objections; debt, late-payment interest and the state fee were awarded.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Allow the claim of korteriühistu (KÜ) Narva Sõbralik (RK 80245744).
First instance
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