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
2-16-587

Narva linn, Kosmonaudi tn 5 korteriühistu

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayObligations of multiple owners

Editorial summary

The default judgment imposed joint and several liability on three owners.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-587/11Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kosmonaudi 5: joint and several award against three owners

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Kosmonaudi 5 · 801701189

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — KÜ Kosmonaudi 5; three defendants — owners XX

Editorial summary

The default judgment imposed joint and several liability on three owners.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Kosmonaudi 5 sought management charges and late-payment interest from three owners XX. The claim documents were served, but no substantive responses were filed in time. In the default proceedings, the court treated the association’s factual allegations as admitted and examined their legal basis. The court awarded principal, accrued late-payment interest and costs of 245 euros jointly and severally by default. Performance may be demanded from any debtor, without recovering the same debt repeatedly. Further late-payment interest of 0.07% per day was awarded on the principal from 11 January 2016 until payment. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security and does not establish actual payment.

Outcome of this decision

The claim was allowed by default; debt, late-payment interest and costs were awarded jointly and severally.
2-16-2463

Narva linn, Juhkentali tn 6 korteriühistu · 80236679

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

Editorial summary

The court approved a three-month payment schedule and separate reimbursement of costs.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-2463/6Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Jaamaga: instalments approved by settlement

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Jaamaga KÜ · 80236679

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — Jaamaga KÜ; defendant — owner XX

Editorial summary

The court approved a three-month payment schedule and separate reimbursement of costs.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Jaamaga KÜ (now — Narva linn, Juhkentali tn 6 korteriühistu). Jaamaga KÜ claimed management charges and late-payment interest from owner XX. The parties agreed the outstanding balance after an earlier partial payment and payment over three months. Litigation costs of 325 euros are payable separately by 31 July 2016; current invoices remain a separate obligation. The court approved the settlement and discontinued proceedings without a separate judgment on the original claims. The same parties cannot bring the same claim again; breach of the settlement can lead to enforcement. By agreement, the appeal period was shortened to three days after service of the order. The order does not establish that future payments were made.

Outcome of this decision

The settlement was approved and proceedings discontinued. The balance is payable by instalments, with costs separately.
2-16-102866

Narva linn, Uusküla tn 1 korteriühistu · 80175825

Contracts and servicesWorks contracts and designPayment, advance payments and refundsApartment association bills, payments and debtsLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

Editorial summary

The court approved the agreed payment and late-payment interest, terminated the dispute and awarded the company a refund of half the court fee.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-102866/5Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Uusküla 1 and Katuse ABC: works contract dispute ended by agreement

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Katuse ABC Osaühing · UUSKÜLA TN 1 KORTERIÜHISTU · 11336757 · 80175825

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – Katuse ABC Osaühing; Defendant – UUSKÜLA TN 1 KORTERIÜHISTU

Editorial summary

The court approved the agreed payment and late-payment interest, terminated the dispute and awarded the company a refund of half the court fee.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Katuse ABC Osaühing brought a works contract claim against the apartment association Uusküla tn 1. The parties settled the dispute by an agreement which the court approved, terminating proceedings. The initial 914,75 euros had been claimed in payment order proceedings; following the association’s objection, the case was transferred to ordinary civil proceedings. The agreement records an acknowledged debt of 85,25 euros* and provides for payment to the company of 82,25 euros* by 15 April 2016, with early payment allowed. If the payment obligation is breached, the company may demand late-payment interest of 0,1% per day on the unpaid amount until payment. The parties waived claims under the former contract and acquired rights under the agreement. The company confirmed that it had no other claims against the association arising from the contract or the circumstances of this case. Each bears its own costs, and the parties have no mutual claims regarding their allocation. The company was awarded a refund of 22,50 euros, half the court fee paid, when the agreement enters into force. The court explained that breach of the terms could lead to compulsory enforcement and that the same dispute could not be brought again. Actual payment by the association or refund of the fee is not confirmed.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement and terminate proceedings. It records a debt of 85,25 euros* and payment of 82,25 euros* by 15 April 2016. Upon delay, late-payment interest is 0,1% per day on the unpaid amount until payment. Each bears its own costs; the company is refunded 22,50 euros in court fees when the agreement enters into force.
2-15-11095

Narva linn, Joala tn 5 korteriühistu · 80158985

Editorial summary

Failure to pay the remaining court fee instalments led to the claim being left without examination and the suspension of enforcement being lifted.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-11095/29Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Joala 5: claim challenging enforcement left without examination because of the court fee

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KORTERIÜHISTU JOALA 5 · 80158985

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – XX; Defendant – KORTERIÜHISTU JOALA 5

Editorial summary

Failure to pay the remaining court fee instalments led to the claim being left without examination and the suspension of enforcement being lifted.

The dispute and the court’s decision

XX brought a claim against the apartment association Joala 5 to declare compulsory enforcement inadmissible. The court allowed the fee to be paid in instalments and later suspended enforcement as an interim measure. The remaining fee instalments were not received in time. The court left the claim unexamined and lifted the suspension. A ruling of 10 September 2015 provided for a court fee of 350 euros payable in instalments. XX submitted a payment of 150 euros: 100 euros for the claim and 50 euros for the application for interim relief. On checking receipts, the court found no payment of the remaining instalments. The claim, already accepted on 9 November 2015, was therefore not examined on its merits. The earlier measure suspending enforcement until the end of this case was lifted following the decision to leave the claim without examination. This is not a decision on whether the recovery itself was correct or confirmation that it was actually completed. Costs were imposed on XX; the court will determine their monetary amount separately after the ruling becomes final. It explained that the same claim could be brought again because it had not been decided on its merits.

Outcome of this decision

Leave XX’s claim against the association to declare compulsory enforcement inadmissible without examination. Lift the interim measure suspending enforcement. XX bears costs, to be quantified in a separate ruling.
2-16-758

Narva linn, Mõisa tn 7 korteriühistu · 80218948

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

Editorial summary

After no response was submitted, the court awarded utility-service principal and the association’s costs by default.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-758/6Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Mõisa 7: utility debt awarded by default

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Mõisa 7 Narva · 80218948

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — KÜ Mõisa 7 Narva; Defendant — XX

Editorial summary

After no response was submitted, the court awarded utility-service principal and the association’s costs by default.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Mõisa 7 Narva (now — Narva linn, Mõisa tn 7 korteriühistu) claimed utility-service principal from XX. The claim was served personally, but no response arrived on time. The court granted the claim by default without a descriptive section or reasoning. No late-payment interest was awarded in the operative part. Principal was awarded and procedural costs were imposed on XX. The association was awarded a 325-euro state fee and 60 euros in legal costs. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security; actual receipt of money is not established. The defendant was informed of reopening by kaja within 30 days after service of the judgment. The same section refers to public service of the judgment and a 30-day period from learning of the judgment or enforcement; personal service of the claim is distinct from service of the judgment itself. The claimant was informed of an appeal to Tartu Ringkonnakohus within 30 days after service, no later than five months after public announcement. Subsequent review is not established.

Outcome of this decision

The claim was granted by default: utility-service principal, a 325-euro state fee and 60 euros in legal costs were awarded. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security. No late-payment interest was awarded by this judgment; enforcement is not established.
2-15-13995

Narva linn, Joala tn 5 korteriühistu · 80158985

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

Latest prepared act · · № 2-15-13995/21

Editorial summary

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

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 2
· Court orderTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-15-13995/21Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Joala 5: appeal returned after the deadline

Court order · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Korteriühistu Joala 5 · 80158985

Entry into force has not been reverified

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

Editorial summary

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

The dispute and the court’s decision

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

Outcome of this decision

Admission of the appeal against the judgment of 03.02.2016 was refused as late; the appeal was returned and is treated as not filed. The appellate court did not review the debt dispute on the merits. The subsequent outcome of the case is not established.
· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-13995/16Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

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

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Joala 5 · 80158985

Entry into force has not been reverified

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

Editorial summary

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

The dispute and the court’s decision

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

Outcome of this decision

The claim was granted and the debt awarded against XX. The court did not decide the other co-owner’s liability; part-payment would reduce the outstanding common obligation. XX was also ordered to reimburse the association’s fee of 75 euros and representation costs of 255 euros.
2-16-3485

Narva linn, Rahu tn 22 korteriühistu · 80218569

Contracts and services

Editorial summary

The association could not obtain confirmation of assignment through a claim against an already deleted company; the court explained another possible procedural route.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-3485/2Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Rahu 22: assignment claim refused because the defendant company had been deleted from the register

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KORTERIÜHISTU RAHU 22 NARVA · Lex Inkasso OÜ · 80218569 · 11730109

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – KORTERIÜHISTU RAHU 22 NARVA; Company named as defendant – Lex Inkasso OÜ; Person concerned by the assigned claim – XX

Editorial summary

The association could not obtain confirmation of assignment through a claim against an already deleted company; the court explained another possible procedural route.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Rahu 22 Narva sought a declaration that Lex Inkasso OÜ had assigned a claim to it. According to the association’s application, the claim against XX had been awarded by a judgment of 10 February 2011 and then transferred by a written agreement. The bailiff would not accept the documents for enforcement without notarised confirmation of the agreement or a court ruling. The court refused to accept the new claim for proceedings. Lex Inkasso OÜ had been deleted from the register on 16 November 2015 and could not be a party to proceedings. The court identified no universal legal successor that could replace the company as defendant. Transfer of a specific claim made the association its acquirer, but did not make it a person who could be both claimant and defendant in the same dispute. The court pointed to a possible separate application for liquidation measures concerning the deleted company. It explained that those proceedings could resolve notarisation of the assignment with a liquidator. No liquidation was ordered in this case, and no independent judicial finding confirmed the assignment. Costs were left with the association; no amounts were recoverable. This ruling did not determine the merits of XX’s underlying debt or whether it could actually be recovered.

Outcome of this decision

Refuse to accept for proceedings the association’s claim against Lex Inkasso OÜ seeking confirmation of assignment. The association bears its costs; there are no reimbursable costs.
2-15-17746

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 2 korteriühistu · 80180393

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLimitation of claimsPayment accounting and set-off

Editorial summary

A three-year period applied, but the court held that partial payments interrupted it.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-17746/10Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Narv-Keskring: partial payment and interruption of limitation

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Narv-Keskring · 80180393

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — KÜ Narv-Keskring; defendant — owner XX

Editorial summary

A three-year period applied, but the court held that partial payments interrupted it.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Narv-Keskring (now — Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 2 korteriühistu). KÜ Narv-Keskring claimed management charges from owner XX. Following partial payment during proceedings, the claim was reduced to the unpaid balance. The defendant pleaded limitation in respect of that balance. The court agreed that periodic obligations were subject to a three-year period rather than the ten years proposed by the association. However, the undisputed payment table showed regular partial payments, which the court treated as acknowledgment interrupting limitation. It held the claim timely and awarded the balance and state fee. The objection was examined on its merits, rather than by default. The judgment records earlier partial payment but not performance of the new award.

Outcome of this decision

The limitation defence was rejected because partial payment acknowledged the claim; the balance was awarded.
2-15-17751

Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 5 korteriühistu · 80180766

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsInstalments and payment schedules

Editorial summary

The settlement separated instalments for management-cost debt and costs while retaining current invoices.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-17751/8Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kreenholmi 5: separate schedules for debt and costs

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KORTERIÜHISTU KREENHOLMI 5 · 80180766

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — KORTERIÜHISTU KREENHOLMI 5; Defendant — XX

Editorial summary

The settlement separated instalments for management-cost debt and costs while retaining current invoices.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KORTERIÜHISTU KREENHOLMI 5 (now — Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 5 korteriühistu) brought a management-cost arrears claim against XX. The court approved a settlement and terminated proceedings without separately deciding the original claim on its merits. The agreement provides for monthly repayment of management-cost arrears over 24 months. Separately, 280 euros* in civil-proceeding costs are payable in their own monthly instalments over 24 months as well. XX must also pay current management invoices regularly and on time. The stated terms contain no special late-payment interest or clause accelerating the entire balance. Costs follow the settlement; each participant bears any unlisted costs. The court made no additional costs award beyond the agreement. By agreement, the interlocutory appeal period was shortened to 3 days after service; the act also states an outer limit of five months after the order. The settlement and termination do not establish actual payment of instalments.

Outcome of this decision

The settlement was approved and proceedings terminated. Principal and 280 euros* in costs are payable under separate schedules over 24 months; current invoices remain payable in addition. Other costs remain with the participants. Actual performance is not established.
2-15-124629

Narva linn, V. Gerassimovi tn 4 korteriühistu · 80170236

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

Editorial summary

The association withdrew its application before the claim was admitted; the court refused admission and did not refund the payment-order fee.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-124629/3Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Gerassimovi 4: claim not admitted and payment-order fee not refunded

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Gerassimovi 4 Narva · 80170236

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — KÜ Gerassimovi 4 Narva; Defendant to the transferred claim — XX

Editorial summary

The association withdrew its application before the claim was admitted; the court refused admission and did not refund the payment-order fee.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Gerassimovi 4 Narva (now — Narva linn, V. Gerassimovi tn 4 korteriühistu) applied for an expedited payment order for debt, late-payment interest and costs. The claim against XX was transferred from Pärnu Maakohus to Viru Maakohus for civil proceedings. The court required the claim and grounds to be presented in the proper form and an additional state fee within 14 days. Before admission of the claim, the association stated that it was withdrawing the application and requested termination and a refund of 45 euros in state fees. No proper claim or supplementary payment was submitted. The court refused admission rather than accepting withdrawal of an already pending claim: the application is treated as not filed and the merits of the debt were not heard. The association bears the costs. The application is not served on the defendant. The 45-euro refund was refused. That amount was paid for payment-order proceedings and no supplementary civil-claim fee was paid; the court stated that the statutory grounds for refunding a payment-order fee did not apply. An interlocutory appeal against refusal to admit the claim was explained, to Tartu Ringkonnakohus through Viru Maakohus within 15 days after service, no later than five months after the order. Under a separate explanation in the act, refusal of the fee refund cannot be challenged by interlocutory appeal.

Outcome of this decision

Admission of the debt claim was refused and the association bears the costs. A refund of the 45-euro payment-order fee was refused. Refusal of admission may be appealed as stated; refusal of the refund may not. The merits of whether the debt existed were not determined.
2-15-17779

Narva linn, Madise tn 7, Madise tn 9 korteriühistu · 80180772

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

Editorial summary

After the debt was paid, proceedings were terminated, but the court separately decided the remaining costs and state-fee refund.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-17779/4Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Grafovi 7,9: debt paid and costs decided on termination

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KORTERIÜHISTU GRAFOVI-7,9 · 80180772

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — KORTERIÜHISTU GRAFOVI-7,9; Defendant — XX

Editorial summary

After the debt was paid, proceedings were terminated, but the court separately decided the remaining costs and state-fee refund.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KORTERIÜHISTU GRAFOVI-7,9 (now — Narva linn, Madise tn 7, Madise tn 9 korteriühistu) brought a debt claim against XX. After proceedings began, XX satisfied the principal claim and the association withdrew it. The court accepted the withdrawal and terminated proceedings; the defendant submitted no objections to termination. The underlying debt is not awarded again. Payment of the principal claim did not cover the association’s requested procedural costs. The court imposed them on XX and awarded the association 87.50 euros in state fees. Recovery of 50 euros in legal fees was refused: the court noted that the association had no contractual representative in these proceedings. Separately, the association is to receive 87.50 euros from the state budget, half the state fee previously paid. This is a separate refund, not another recovery from XX. The court explained that the same claim against the same defendant on the same basis cannot be brought again. An interlocutory appeal lies to Tartu Ringkonnakohus through Viru Maakohus within 15 days after service, no later than five months after the order. Receipt of the awarded costs or budget refund is not established.

Outcome of this decision

The withdrawal was accepted and proceedings terminated after the principal claim was satisfied. XX was ordered to pay 87.50 euros in state fees; 50 euros in legal costs were refused. Separately refund 87.50 euros in state fees to the association from the budget. Performance of these monetary orders is not established.
2-15-118130

Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 4 korteriühistu · 80189253

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

Editorial summary

After reporting full payment, the association withdrew its claim and the court terminated proceedings.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-118130/9Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kreenholmi 4: proceedings terminated after payment and withdrawal

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Kreenholmi 4 · 80189253

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — KÜ Kreenholmi 4; Defendant — XX

Editorial summary

After reporting full payment, the association withdrew its claim and the court terminated proceedings.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Kreenholmi 4 (now — Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 4 korteriühistu) sought utility-payment arrears and late-payment interest from XX. After an objection in expedited payment-order proceedings, the dispute proceeded as a civil claim. The association agreed to reduce late-payment interest if principal was paid in full. The payment information recorded by the court developed in stages: principal and payment-order costs were paid first, and the association then reported payment of the entire remaining claim and procedural costs. It withdrew its claim. The court proceeded on the basis that the entire claim and requested costs had been paid, accepted the withdrawal and terminated proceedings without a merits judgment. This order makes no new debt award. No procedural-cost reimbursement claim was made on termination, and no separate monetary costs award was made. The court explained that the same claim against the same defendant on the same basis cannot be brought again after termination. An interlocutory appeal may be filed with Tartu Ringkonnakohus through Viru Maakohus within 15 days after service. No later acts are established by the source.

Outcome of this decision

The association’s withdrawal was accepted and proceedings terminated after full payment of the claim and costs as recorded in the act. No new sums are awarded; no costs claim was submitted. This is neither approval of a settlement nor dismissal on the merits.