Skip to decisions
Žuk — ANTON и JELENA

Legal archive: reviews of court practice concerning Narva apartment associations

This section contains analytical reviews and editorial summaries of publicly available court decisions concerning relations between apartment owners and apartment associations in Narva. The information has been prepared by the Žuk Kinnisvara team for informational purposes.

We explain complex legal acts in plain language. Our archive is continually updated.

We plan to add reviews of decisions of the Supreme Court of Estonia (Riigikohus) on important issues concerning relations between apartment owners and apartment associations.

Before making important legal decisions, always check the official status and full case text in the state register (Riigi Teataja / e-Toimik).

Subjects and subtopics

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

Additional parameters

Reset all
2-16-123

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

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

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.
· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-123/38Read actFirst instance

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

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.
2-17-1939

Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 33 korteriühistu · 80175469

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

Editorial summary

Failure to respond to the served claim led to a default award of debt and late-payment interest, including continuing accrual.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-1939/4Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kreenholmi 33: debt, late-payment interest and costs awarded by default

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KORTERIÜHISTU KREENHOLMI 33 · 80175469

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – KORTERIÜHISTU KREENHOLMI 33; Defendant – owner XX

Editorial summary

Failure to respond to the served claim led to a default award of debt and late-payment interest, including continuing accrual.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Kreenholmi 33 brought a claim against owner XX for utility and maintenance charges. The defendant was duly served with the documents and allowed 14 days to respond, with a warning about a default judgment. No response arrived; the court treated the claimant’s factual allegations as admitted under the default procedure. The court awarded the principal, accrued late-payment interest and litigation costs. Further late-payment interest of 0,07% per day accrues on unpaid principal until repayment. Accrued and continuing late-payment interest are distinct parts of the result. The judgment is immediately enforceable. The award itself does not confirm actual payment.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the claim by default: award principal, accrued late-payment interest, continuing late-payment interest of 0,07% per day on unpaid principal until repayment, and litigation costs against XX. The judgment is immediately enforceable.
2-16-19133

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 2 korteriühistu · 80180393

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

Editorial summary

The case ended after payment; XX must reimburse part of the court fee and legal assistance, while the remaining half of the fee is refunded to the association.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-19133/7Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

NARV-KESKRING: waiver accepted after payment; court fee and costs allocated

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KORTERIÜHISTU NARV-KESKRING · 80180393

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – KORTERIÜHISTU NARV-KESKRING; Defendant – XX

Editorial summary

The case ended after payment; XX must reimburse part of the court fee and legal assistance, while the remaining half of the fee is refunded to the association.

The dispute and the court’s decision

On 9 March 2017, the apartment association NARV-KESKRING (now – Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 2 korteriühistu) waived its claim against XX, reporting that the defendant had repaid the debt. The court accepted the waiver and terminated proceedings. The principal was not awarded again and its amount is not given in the ruling. As the demand was met after the claim was filed, costs were imposed on XX. The association was awarded 62,50 euros, half the court fee paid, and 63 euros for legal assistance. The court ordered the other half of the fee, also 62,50 euros, to be refunded to the association after the ruling becomes final. These are different payments: one is payable by the defendant; the other is refunded from the fee paid to the court. The court explained that, following termination, the association may not bring another claim against the same defendant with the same subject matter and grounds.

Outcome of this decision

Accept the waiver and terminate proceedings. Award the association 62,50 euros in court fees and 63 euros for legal assistance against XX. A further 62,50 euros of the court fee paid is to be refunded to the association after the ruling becomes final.
2-16-19101

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 2 korteriühistu · 80180393

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

Editorial summary

The association did not clarify the proper defendant after the court’s direction; the claim against a deceased person was not admitted.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-19101/3Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

NARV-KESKRING: claim not accepted for proceedings for lack of a proper defendant

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KORTERIÜHISTU NARV-KESKRING · 80180393

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — KORTERIÜHISTU NARV-KESKRING; Person named in the application — XX

Editorial summary

The association did not clarify the proper defendant after the court’s direction; the claim against a deceased person was not admitted.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association NARV-KESKRING (now — Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 2 korteriühistu) brought a monetary claim against XX. The court established that the named defendant had died and therefore could not be a party to proceedings. By a ruling of 2 January 2017, the association was invited to clarify the defendant’s details, but it neither remedied the defects nor requested an extension. The court refused to accept for proceedings the claim and ordered the application and attachments returned after the ruling entered into force. The debt claim was not examined on its merits. The court explained that a claim against the heirs was not excluded; this ruling did not establish who they were, their acceptance of the inheritance or their liability. Costs were left to the association; there were no costs reimbursable to the other party. Upon refusal to accept for proceedings and return, the application is regarded as never filed or pending in ordinary claim proceedings.

Outcome of this decision

Refuse to accept for proceedings the claim. Return the application and attachments after the act enters into force. The association bears costs; there are no reimbursable costs.
2-16-119304

Narva linn, Uusküla tn 17 korteriühistu · 80054990

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

Editorial summary

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

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

Separate act page

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

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Majak · 80054990

Entry into force has not been reverified

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

Editorial summary

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

The dispute and the court’s decision

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

Outcome of this decision

Grant the claim by default: award debt, accrued interest, further interest of 0,07% per day on principal until repayment and costs of 151,64 euros against XX. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security.
2-16-16294

Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 7 korteriühistu · 80175771

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

Editorial summary

The court awarded the association debt and a 125 euro fee; the act contains only the operative part and procedural explanations.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-16294/10Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kreenholmi 7: debt and fee awarded in simplified proceedings

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Kreenholmi 7 · 80175771

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — KÜ Kreenholmi 7; Defendant — XX

Editorial summary

The court awarded the association debt and a 125 euro fee; the act contains only the operative part and procedural explanations.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Kreenholmi 7 brought a claim against XX for apartment maintenance costs. The court heard the case in written simplified proceedings and granted the claim, awarding the association debt and a 125 euro state fee against XX. The operative part leaves the remaining costs to the parties themselves. The judgment contains no account of the facts or reasons. It therefore does not disclose the composition of the charges, the participants’ positions or evidence of debt. The court did not give separate permission to appeal, but noted the possibility of admission where there was an obvious material error in applying the law, procedure or assessment of evidence. To obtain reasons supplementing the judgment, a participant had to notify the court in writing of an intention to appeal within 10 days of service of the operative part. A 30-day appeal period is provided after service of the supplemented judgment.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the claim. Award the association debt and a 125 euro fee against XX. Leave the remaining costs to the parties themselves.
2-16-5698

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu · 80121083

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

Latest prepared act · · № 2-16-5698/28

Editorial summary

The association appealed against refusal to accept for proceedings the claim; the circuit court confirmed the absence of international jurisdiction for an Estonian court.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 3 · Unprepared stages: 1
· RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-16-5698/28Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Puškini 13: refusal to accept for proceedings debt claim upheld on international jurisdiction grounds

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ Puškini 13 · 80121083

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and appellant — KÜ Puškini 13; Defendant XX; Association’s representative XX

Editorial summary

The association appealed against refusal to accept for proceedings the claim; the circuit court confirmed the absence of international jurisdiction for an Estonian court.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Tartu Ringkonnakohus dismissed the apartment association Puškini 13’s appeal against refusal to accept for proceedings a utility debt claim against XX. The existence of the debt was not examined on the merits: the court found that the dispute did not fall within the jurisdiction of an Estonian court under the international jurisdiction rules applied. The association sought payment of apartment expenses and late-payment interest. An earlier refusal to accept for proceedings the claim had been set aside and the matter remitted to the county court. On reconsideration, the county court again not accepted for proceedings, proceeding from the defendant’s residence in Russia. The association objected that the apartment was in Estonia, so in its view the claim could be heard there. It relied on rules concerning the location of property and the circuit court’s earlier ruling, and considered recovery through a foreign court excessively burdensome. The circuit court applied the Estonia–Russia legal assistance treaty then applicable to this dispute. It stated that an international treaty takes priority over domestic procedural rules. For this type of claim, the treaty links jurisdiction to the defendant’s residence; the court found no grounds to depart from that rule. The association was left to bear the appeal costs. Their monetary amount was not determined. The decision concerns the court’s jurisdiction in this case, rather than the merits of the debt.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss the association’s appeal and uphold refusal to accept for proceedings the claim. The association bears appeal costs; the debt and interest were not determined on their merits.
· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-5698/23Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Debt claim refused admission for lack of international jurisdiction

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Puškini 13 · 80121083

Entry into force has not been reverified

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

Editorial summary

The dispute over building charges did not reach the merits because the court found an obstacle to international jurisdiction.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Puškini 13 (now — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu). KÜ Puškini 13 sought unpaid management and utility charges from owner XX. Applying the Estonian-Russian legal assistance treaty cited in this order, the court noted that the defendant lived in Russia and had not given written consent to proceedings in Estonia. The association did not answer the court’s enquiry about sending translated documents through the competent Russian court. The court refused to admit the claim without deciding whether the debt existed.

Outcome of this decision

The claim was not admitted and the application and annexes are to be returned to the association, which bears all procedural costs. The fee may be refunded on the payer’s application.
· Court orderTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-16-5698/14Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Admission of a claim remitted for further efforts to locate and serve the defendant

Court order · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ Puškini 13 · 80121083

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Association — claimant and appellant against the order; XX — defendant

Editorial summary

The review concerned whether sufficient efforts to locate and serve the defendant preceded the refusal to admit the claim.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Puškini 13 (now — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu). KÜ Puškini 13 challenged the refusal to admit its claim against XX for management and utility arrears. The first-instance court considered that proceedings could not take place in Estonia without the written consent of the defendant living abroad. Tartu Ringkonnakohus held that the defendant’s position on the place of proceedings remained unknown and reasonable ways of obtaining service information had not been exhausted. At the association’s request, the court could obtain property acquisition contracts containing contact details.

Outcome of this decision

The appeal against the order was granted and the Viru Maakohus order of 14 June 2016 was set aside. The case was remitted for a fresh decision on admitting the claim; no debt was awarded and jurisdiction was not finally resolved. Costs are to be allocated in the final decision.
Not prepared yet

· Case 2-16-5698 · Viru Maakohus · First instance

2-15-123861

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 42 korteriühistu · 80175430

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayBills and justification of charges

Latest prepared act · · № 2-15-123861/23

Editorial summary

The defendant tried to appeal a judgment under the simplified procedure; the circuit court found no grounds to admit the appeal.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 2
· RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-15-123861/23Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Kangelaste 42: appeal in a simplified-procedure case not accepted for proceedings

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Korteriühistu Kangelaste 42 · 80175430

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – Korteriühistu Kangelaste 42; Defendant and appellant XX

Editorial summary

The defendant tried to appeal a judgment under the simplified procedure; the circuit court found no grounds to admit the appeal.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Tartu Ringkonnakohus refused to accept defendant XX’s appeal in the debt and late-payment interest claim brought by the apartment association Kangelaste 42. The appeal is deemed returned and not filed. This ruling concerns admission of the appeal, rather than a new award of debt. The county court had previously granted the claim and imposed costs on the defendant. It dealt with the case under the simplified procedure and did not grant leave to appeal. The defendant appealed; the ruling gives the appeal value as 391,48 euros. It does not disclose detailed arguments on the debt calculation or how that amount was split between demands. The circuit court explained that, in such a case, absence of county court permission does not unconditionally rule out an appeal. It may be accepted if the court clearly misapplied the law, seriously breached procedure or clearly misjudged evidence and this could substantially affect the result. The circuit court found no such grounds. It considered that the county court had sufficiently examined the defendant’s liability and had justifiedly granted the claim. Mere disagreement with the judgment was insufficient for admission of the appeal. This ruling sets no new monetary amounts or costs figure. The possibility of a further appeal to Riigikohus was explained separately.

Outcome of this decision

Refuse to accept XX’s appeal. It is deemed returned and not filed; this ruling makes no new recovery award.
· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-123861/18Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Building charges and late-payment interest

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Korteriühistu Kangelaste 42 · 80175430

Entry into force has not been reverified

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

Editorial summary

The court examined the building charges and the defendant’s objections about the calculations and payments.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Korteriühistu Kangelaste 42 (now — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 42 korteriühistu). Korteriühistu Kangelaste 42 sought building charges and late-payment interest from owner XX. The defendant disputed the supporting calculations and relied on payments made. The court found the claim supported by the association’s calculation and documents, and found no proof of overpayment.

Outcome of this decision

The operative part grants the claim, awards the debt and accrued late-payment interest, and orders 0.07% daily on unpaid principal from 1 February 2016 until payment. Costs are borne by the defendant; unpaid procedural costs attract interest from finality at the ECB rate specified in the judgment plus 8 percent annually.
2-16-128629

Narva linn, Uusküla tn 11 korteriühistu · 80145391

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

Editorial summary

After the company’s objection, the association had to formalise a claim and pay an additional fee, but did not comply with the court’s requirement.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-128629/3Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Uusküla 11: application against company refused after defects remained unremedied

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

NARVA UUSKÜLA 11 KORTERIÜHISTU · OÜ BRISK GRUPP · 80145391 · 10610573

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant – NARVA UUSKÜLA 11 KORTERIÜHISTU; Person named as debtor – OÜ BRISK GRUPP; Organisations’ representatives XX

Editorial summary

After the company’s objection, the association had to formalise a claim and pay an additional fee, but did not comply with the court’s requirement.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court refused to accept the application by the apartment association NARVA UUSKÜLA 11 against OÜ BRISK GRUPP into ordinary civil proceedings. The association did not provide proper grounds for its demand or pay the additional court fee within the time limit. Whether the company owed a debt was not decided on the merits. The association initially applied for a payment order on 1 December 2016. After the payment proposal, the company objected to the claim. Payment order proceedings ended and the papers were referred to Viru Maakohus to continue as an ordinary civil claim. On 4 January 2017, the court required the association, within 14 days of service of the ruling, to format and substantiate its demand under the rules for a statement of claim and pay the additional court fee. The association received the ruling on 6 January, but neither documents nor additional payment arrived in time. This was the basis for refusing to accept the application. Litigation costs were left with the association. The ruling gives no claim amount, additional fee amount or specific costs figure.

Outcome of this decision

Refuse to accept the association’s application against OÜ BRISK GRUPP into ordinary civil proceedings. The association bears costs; the debt was not considered on its merits.
2-16-15739

Narva linn, Soldina tn 2 korteriühistu · 80180921

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

Editorial summary

The owner sought a declaration of no debt; the association did not respond to the claim and the court gave a default judgment.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-15739/22Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Tiimani 2: default judgment established no debt as at 1 January 2016

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Korteriühistu TIIMANI 2 · 80180921

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – owner XX; Defendant – Korteriühistu TIIMANI 2; Parties’ representatives XX

Editorial summary

The owner sought a declaration of no debt; the association did not respond to the claim and the court gave a default judgment.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court granted owner XX’s claim against the apartment association TIIMANI 2 by default and declared that, as at 1 January 2016, the claimant had no debt to the association for apartment maintenance and utilities. It did not grant the demand to require the association to recalculate charges as at a different date, 1 October 2016, as the method of performing the judgment. The claimant alleged that, after purchasing the apartment, the association had transferred the former owner’s debts to him. He said that he paid the principal in June 2016, but late-payment interest continued to accrue. He sought a declaration of no debt on the date stated in the claim and a change to the calculation of charges. The association received the claim documents and a warning about a possible default judgment but supplied no written response within the 14 days allowed. The court treated the claimant’s factual allegations as admitted under the default judgment rules and found a legal interest in deciding the debt question. The association was ordered to pay the claimant 135 euros in contractual representative’s costs. The court intended to recover the court fee, from which the claimant had previously been exempted, from the association for the state by a separate ruling; this judgment did not conclude that separate issue. The judgment was declared immediately enforceable. It does not establish absence of all debts on other dates or actual payment of the awarded costs.

Outcome of this decision

Declare that XX had no debt to the association as at 1 January 2016. Award XX 135 euros in costs against the association. Refuse the request to specify recalculation as at 1 October 2016 as the method of performance; recovery of the fee for the state is to be decided separately. The judgment is immediately enforceable.
2-16-111357

Narva linn, V. Gerassimovi tn 22 korteriühistu · 80274250

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

Editorial summary

The owner did not respond to the personally served claim; the court awarded the debt, late-payment interest and costs by default.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-111357/9Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Mugav: debt and continuing late-payment interest awarded by default

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Mugav · 80274250

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – KÜ Mugav; Defendant – owner XX; Association’s contractual representative XX

Editorial summary

The owner did not respond to the personally served claim; the court awarded the debt, late-payment interest and costs by default.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court granted the claim by the apartment association Mugav (now – Narva linn, V. Gerassimovi tn 22 korteriühistu) against owner XX by default. It awarded arrears, accrued late-payment interest and continuing late-payment interest of 0,07% per day on the unpaid principal until full payment. Litigation costs of 288 euros* were awarded. The association alleged that, as an owner and association member, the defendant had to pay building maintenance and utility charges but did so irregularly and incompletely. It sought those sums, further late-payment interest and costs. The claim and the ruling accepting it were served personally on the defendant against signature on 22 December 2016. The court allowed 14 days to respond and warned of the possibility of a default judgment. The defendant did not respond in time. The court applied the default judgment rules and granted the claim. The court considered the requested costs justified and imposed them on the defendant. The judgment was declared immediately enforceable. It does not confirm actual payment of the awarded sums.

Outcome of this decision

Award the association the debt, accrued late-payment interest, continuing late-payment interest of 0,07% per day on unpaid principal until payment and 288 euros* in costs against XX. The judgment is immediately enforceable.
2-16-11341

Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 9 korteriühistu · 80289285

Contracts and servicesPayment, advance payments and refunds

Editorial summary

The association sought repayment of a contractual advance; the company and second defendant did not respond after service of the claim by public notice.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-11341/17Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Võidu 9: company and second defendant ordered by default to refund an advance

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Võidu 9 Narva · Farkam SV OÜ · 80289285 · 12991651

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – KÜ Võidu 9 Narva; Defendant – Farkam SV OÜ; Second defendant XX; Organisations’ representatives XX

Editorial summary

The association sought repayment of a contractual advance; the company and second defendant did not respond after service of the claim by public notice.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court granted the claim by the apartment association Võidu 9 Narva for repayment of an advance by default. Farkam SV OÜ and defendant XX were ordered jointly and severally to repay the advance and 225 euros in court fees. Joint and several liability is a shared obligation: the association may seek the amount from either debtor but may not collect the full amount twice. The association relied on two contracts, signed on 28 March and 1 April 2016, and the advance transferred under them. It alleged that the defendants had not properly performed their contractual obligations and therefore sought repayment. The judgment does not disclose the detailed subject of the works or substantive objections from the defendants. The claim and the ruling accepting it were served on the defendants by public notice through Ametlikud Teadaanded; the court deemed service completed on 15 December 2016. No response arrived within the 14 days allowed. The court granted the claim under the default judgment rules. The judgment was declared immediately enforceable without security. The court also provided for service of the judgment itself by public notice, as it was unknown to whom and where it could be delivered in the ordinary way. The judgment does not establish actual repayment of the advance or payment of the awarded costs.

Outcome of this decision

Award the association repayment of the advance and 225 euros in costs jointly and severally against Farkam SV OÜ and XX. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security; service by public notice is provided for.