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
2-14-9883

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 4 korteriühistu · 80145451

Parking and groundsUse of shared landDocuments and informationInspection and copies of documentsApartment association meetings and decisions

Latest prepared act · · № 2-14-9883/49

Editorial summary

The appeal succeeded in part: the provision charging 5 euros per page was declared void, while the general parking rules remained in place.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 2
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-14-9883/49Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Kangelaste 4: copying fee struck down, general parking rules upheld

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ Kangelaste 4 · 80145451

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and appellant – owner XX; Defendant – KÜ Kangelaste 4

Editorial summary

The appeal succeeded in part: the provision charging 5 euros per page was declared void, while the general parking rules remained in place.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Owner XX challenged two items in the association’s general meeting decision of 5 December 2013: parking rules and a fee of 5 euros for each page of a document copy. The first-instance court rejected both claims. The appeal court changed the judgment on copying fees. The parking rules did not allocate specific spaces to owners but laid down general requirements for parking and drivers’ conduct. The court treated them as ordinary management of shared property, for which a majority vote was sufficient. The refusal to invalidate those rules was upheld. The court considered the charge of 5 euros per page unjustifiably high and contrary to good morals: for a request involving many pages, it could impede access to information about the association’s management. It declared the corresponding meeting decision item void, meaning legally invalid. This does not mean that the association must supply every copy free of charge. The court allowed a reasonable per-page fee and a separate one-off fee to cover other copying costs. The previous costs award of 140 euros against XX was set aside; each party was left to bear its own costs at both levels.

Outcome of this decision

Set aside the dismissal of the copying claim and declare item 5 of the meeting decision of 5 December 2013 void. Uphold the rest of the judgment. Each party bears its own costs at both levels.
· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-9883/28Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Shared parking rules and charges for paper copies

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Korteriühistu Kangelaste 4 · 80145451

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: XX — claimant, association member; Association — defendant

Editorial summary

General parking rules differ from allocating individual spaces. The later appeal upheld dismissal concerning parking but declared the 5-euro-per-page copy charge void; reimbursement of reasonable actual costs remains possible.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Korteriühistu Kangelaste 4 (now — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 4 korteriühistu). XX challenged two decisions of Korteriühistu Kangelaste 4: parking rules and a charge of 5 euros per page for paper copies. The court distinguished allocating specific spaces from general rules allowing use of any free space subject to markings and prohibitions, finding this ordinary use of common land. It held that the copy charge did not prevent inspection or electronic access. Later, on 29 January 2016, Tartu Ringkonnakohus declared the 5-euro-per-page copy-charge provision void as unjustifiably high, while upholding dismissal of the challenge to the parking rules. Reasonable actual copying costs may be reimbursable. The 140-euro costs award was set aside; each party bears its own costs in both instances.

Outcome of this decision

Initially, the claim was dismissed and XX was ordered to pay the association 140 euros in costs. On 29 January 2016, Tartu Ringkonnakohus declared the 5-euro-per-page copy-charge provision void while upholding dismissal concerning the parking rules. The 140-euro award was set aside; each party bears its own costs in both instances.
2-15-7508

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 7 korteriühistu · 80162656

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

Editorial summary

The association and company agreed on debt and two payments.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-7508/17Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Debt settlement between a company and an association

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

OÜ Reacilvia · KÜ KANGELASTE 7 · 11509534 · 80162656

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — OÜ Reacilvia; defendant — KÜ KANGELASTE 7

Editorial summary

The association and company agreed on debt and two payments.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ KANGELASTE 7 (now — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 7 korteriühistu). OÜ Reacilvia claimed debt and late-payment interest totalling 14,905.08 euros from KÜ KANGELASTE 7. The association contested the claim. The court approved a settlement: the association acknowledges 12,500 euros and must pay 6,250 euros by each of 30 January and 1 September 2016. The company waives late-payment interest. No mutual claims remain after that debt is paid. Proceedings were terminated; each party bears its own costs and waives appeal. On entry into force, 350 euros of the 700-euro state fee is to be refunded to the company. The order approves terms rather than establishing performance; the contract underlying the debt is not disclosed.

Outcome of this decision

Two payments of 6,250 euros and waiver of late-payment interest approved; proceedings terminated, fee refund 350 euros.
2-14-56170

Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 7 korteriühistu · 80183693

Damage and insuranceWater and seweragePipes, risers and sewerageHeatingTemperature and heating qualityRepairs and shared propertyAlterations to layouts and shared property

Latest prepared act · · № 2-14-56170/70

Editorial summary

Later termination of representation did not change the appeal deadline.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 2
· Court orderTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-14-56170/70Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Appeal period after service on a representative

Court order · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ Pähklimäe 7/11 · 80183693

Entry into force has not been reverified

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

Editorial summary

Later termination of representation did not change the appeal deadline.

The dispute and the court’s decision

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

Outcome of this decision

Appeal refused admission and returned as out of time.
· JudgmentViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-14-56170/58Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

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

Judgment · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

KÜ Pähklimäe 7/11 · 80183693

Entry into force has not been reverified

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

Editorial summary

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

The dispute and the court’s decision

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

Outcome of this decision

The claim was dismissed as time-barred; no restoration was ordered. This did not decide that the reconstruction was lawful on the merits. XX bears costs, with their amount and recovery for the state reserved for separate orders.
2-15-118705

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

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

Editorial summary

The court granted the association’s debt claim but did not award the requested legal fees.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-118705/8Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Grafovi 7,9: debt awarded but legal fees refused

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ GRAFOVI-7,9 · 80180772

Entry into force has not been reverified

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

Editorial summary

The court granted the association’s debt claim but did not award the requested legal fees.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ GRAFOVI-7,9 (now — Narva linn, Madise tn 7, Madise tn 9 korteriühistu) brought a debt claim against XX. After service of the documents, the court entered judgment by default for failure to respond, without a descriptive section or reasoning. The act does not disclose the services involved or substantive objections to the charges. The debt claim was granted. Procedural costs were imposed on XX, and the association was awarded its paid state fee of 200 euros. However, the court refused recovery of 80 euros in legal fees. The provided text does not explain that refusal. Granting the debt claim therefore did not mean granting all requested costs. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security. The defendant was informed of reopening by kaja within 30 days after service or, for public service, after learning of the judgment or enforcement. The claimant was informed of an appeal to Tartu Ringkonnakohus within 30 days after service, no later than five months after public announcement. Actual enforcement or subsequent review is not established.

Outcome of this decision

The debt was awarded by default, with a 200-euro state fee; recovery of 80 euros in legal fees was refused. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security. Receipt of money is not established.
2-15-8467

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12b korteriühistu · 80128292

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

Editorial summary

After no response was submitted, the court awarded management-cost debt, late-payment interest and the association’s costs by default.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-8467/8Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kangelaste 12b: management-cost debt and late-payment interest in a default judgment

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ KANGELASTE 12b · 80128292

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — KÜ KANGELASTE 12b; Defendant — XX

Editorial summary

After no response was submitted, the court awarded management-cost debt, late-payment interest and the association’s costs by default.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ KANGELASTE 12b (now — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12b korteriühistu) brought a management-cost debt and late-payment interest claim against XX. The claim documents and costs schedule were personally served, but no response to the claim arrived on time. The court entered a default judgment without a descriptive section or reasoning. The claim was granted: principal and accrued late-payment interest were awarded. All procedural costs were imposed on XX; the association was awarded 335.00 euros, comprising a 250.00-euro state fee and 85.00 euros in legal fees. The operative part sets no new future late-payment interest. The judgment is immediately enforceable; receipt of money is not established. The defendant was informed of reopening by kaja within 30 days after service or, for public service, after learning of the judgment or enforcement proceedings. The claimant was informed of an appeal to Tartu Ringkonnakohus within 30 days after service, no later than five months after public announcement.

Outcome of this decision

The claim was granted by default: principal, late-payment interest and 335.00 euros in costs were awarded. The judgment is immediately enforceable. Continuing late-payment interest was not separately awarded; actual performance is not established.
2-14-18154

Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 10 korteriühistu · 80183397

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

Editorial summary

Three owners are liable for a common debt; the court assessed costs separately.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-18154/44Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Võidu 10: joint and several award against three owners

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Võidu 10 · 80183397

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — KÜ Võidu 10; three defendants — owners XX

Editorial summary

Three owners are liable for a common debt; the court assessed costs separately.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Võidu 10 (now — Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 10 korteriühistu). KÜ Võidu 10 sought management charges and late-payment interest from three owners XX. The court found proper service on all defendants and a response period with a warning about the consequences of silence. No responses were filed. The court allowed the claim by default and awarded principal and accrued late-payment interest jointly and severally. This is a common obligation of the three defendants rather than three separate recoveries of the same sum. Costs were also awarded jointly and severally, but reduced: the court used the applicable fee and proof of payment and allowed two hours of necessary legal work. The judgment is immediately enforceable; actual payment was not established.

Outcome of this decision

The claim was allowed by default; debt, late-payment interest and reduced costs were awarded jointly and severally.
2-15-11354

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 42 korteriühistu · 80054903

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeQuorum and repeat meetings

Editorial summary

A repeat meeting also required notice under the charter.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-11354/18Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Notice period for a repeat meeting

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Tallinna mnt 42 · 80054903

Entry into force has not been reverified

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

Editorial summary

A repeat meeting also required notice under the charter.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Tallinna mnt 42 (now — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 42 korteriühistu). XX challenged point 5 of KÜ Tallinna mnt 42’s meeting decision of 7 May 2015 confirming decisions from 2002–2014. The first meeting failed for lack of a quorum. The charter required a repeat meeting within a month and 14 days’ notice. The court rejected the argument that the monthly limit allowed a meeting even the next day: the notice period still applied. The challenged point was declared void, meaning legally ineffective. The alternative request to set aside the same point was refused because the primary remedy had already been granted. The lawfulness of every earlier decision was not determined separately. Costs remained with the parties, who waived appeal.

Outcome of this decision

Challenged point declared void; alternative request refused and costs left with the parties.
2-15-2902

Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 7 korteriühistu · 80189247

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

Editorial summary

An established assignment does not replace proof of the late-payment interest calculation.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-2902/11Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Võidu 7: assignment of debt and inadequate calculation of some late-payment interest

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Auvõlg OÜ · KÜ Võidu 7 · 11901152 ·

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — assignee Auvõlg OÜ; defendant — owner XX; original creditor — KÜ Võidu 7

Editorial summary

An established assignment does not replace proof of the late-payment interest calculation.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Võidu 7 assigned its management-charge claims against owner XX to Auvõlg OÜ. The court found the assignment, ownership and principal debt established; the new creditor could seek performance in place of the association. The defendant’s response was treated as a denial of the claim and the dispute was examined on its merits. The claim was allowed in part: principal, substantiated accrued late-payment interest and further late-payment interest of 0.07% per day on unpaid principal from 26 February 2015 until payment were awarded. Earlier late-payment interest was refused because the claim lacked a clear and unambiguous calculation. Costs were apportioned: 62% to the defendant and 38% to the company. The company was awarded 186 euros in state fees. An award does not establish actual payment.

Outcome of this decision

The new creditor was awarded principal and some late-payment interest; earlier late-payment interest was refused for inadequate calculation.
2-14-52886

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 21 korteriühistu · 80228958

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsBills and justification of chargesDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayPayment accounting and set-off

Latest prepared act · · № 2-14-52886/42

Editorial summary

The association acknowledged an accounting error in the charges.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 2
· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-52886/42Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Absence of debt and recalculation

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Tallinna mnt 21 Narva · 80228958

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — owner XX; defendant — KÜ Tallinna mnt 21 Narva

Editorial summary

The association acknowledged an accounting error in the charges.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Tallinna mnt 21 Narva (now — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 21 korteriühistu). XX sought a declaration of no management-charge or utility debt to KÜ Tallinna mnt 21 Narva. The association acknowledged an accounting error; the court allowed the claim on admission. No debt was established for 10 October 2012–1 May 2014 as of 1 June 2014, and the association was ordered to recalculate that period. This does not excuse future payments. Costs were imposed on the association because it gave cause for proceedings. The award was 505 euros: a 175-euro fee and 330 euros in representation costs. Requested legal costs were reduced by 400 euros for drafting claims signed by the claimant and an application absent from the file. Costs concerning alleged court delay were not imposed on the opposing party.

Outcome of this decision

No debt declared for the specified period; association ordered to recalculate and reimburse 505 euros in costs.
· Court orderTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-14-52886/10Read actAppeal

Separate act page

KÜ Tallinna mnt 21 Narva: refusal to admit a claim disputing a debt was premature

Court order · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ Tallinna mnt 21 Narva · 80228958

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and appellant against the order — XX; claimant’s representative — XX; defendant — KÜ Tallinna mnt 21 Narva

Editorial summary

XX disputed a debt charged by the association. The circuit court examined the refusal to admit the claim, rather than the correctness of the utility calculation.

The dispute and the court’s decision

XX sought a declaration that no debt was owed to KÜ Tallinna mnt 21 Narva and a recalculation of utility charges. XX argued that the association kept adding late-payment charges and applied payments to those charges first. The county court refused to admit the claim because it considered the grounds and debt calculation insufficient. The circuit court found the refusal premature. The purpose of the claim was clear, and a person denying a debt could have difficulty explaining the association’s own basis for charging it. The county court should have asked the association what made up the debt, when it arose and how payments were allocated. The refusal was set aside and the case returned for a fresh decision on admitting the claim. This order did not establish that no debt existed or require a recalculation. Costs were left for the final decision in the county court.

Outcome of this decision

The appeal against the order was allowed. The county court order of 6 October 2014 was set aside and the case returned for a decision on admitting the claim after obtaining the association’s position. The absence of a debt was not established.
2-15-105631

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 9 korteriühistu · 80170532

Contracts and servicesTenancy and leaseApartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayDamage and insuranceFire

Editorial summary

The court did not establish a rent exemption in exchange for repairs.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-105631/33Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Rent following a fire

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Kangelaste 9 · MTÜ Uus Võimalus · 80170532 · 80353936

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and landlord — KÜ Kangelaste 9; defendant and tenant — MTÜ Uus Võimalus

Editorial summary

The court did not establish a rent exemption in exchange for repairs.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Kangelaste 9 (now — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 9 korteriühistu). KÜ Kangelaste 9 leased non-residential premises to MTÜ Uus Võimalus. After a fire, the tenant disputed rent for September and October 2014, citing unusability and a promised rent exemption in exchange for repairs. The court found no proof of that agreement and held the termination notice non-compliant. The handover record and testimony established termination on 25 October 2014. Crediting 38.13 euros paid after the claim, the court awarded debt of 782.15 euros, accrued late-payment interest of 278.67 euros and 0.1% per day on unpaid principal from 7 November 2015 until performance. Collection costs of 40 euros and procedural costs of 1,268 euros were also awarded. This decides the particular contract and does not establish subsequent payment.

Outcome of this decision

Debt of 782.15 euros, late-payment interest of 278.67 euros and continuing late-payment interest, 40 euros collection costs and 1,268 euros procedural costs awarded.
2-15-105489

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 23 korteriühistu · 80228941

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

Editorial summary

The association obtained a default judgment for management-cost arrears, late-payment interest and procedural costs.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-105489/6Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 23: management costs awarded by default

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Tallinna mnt 23 Narva · 80228941

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — KÜ Tallinna mnt 23 Narva; Defendant, owner — XX

Editorial summary

The association obtained a default judgment for management-cost arrears, late-payment interest and procedural costs.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Tallinna mnt 23 Narva (now — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 23 korteriühistu) claimed management-cost arrears and late-payment interest from the owner XX. The claim was served personally; the court entered judgment by default for failure to respond, without a descriptive section or reasoning. The claim was granted: principal and accrued late-payment interest were awarded against XX. All procedural costs were imposed on XX; the association was awarded 211.54 euros* in costs. The operative part does not order continuing late-payment interest until payment. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security, but receipt of money is not established. The defendant was informed of kaja within 30 days after service of the judgment if there was a valid reason for the inaction. Where the claim was served otherwise than personally against signature or electronically, the source allows kaja without such a reason. The claimant was informed of an appeal to Tartu Ringkonnakohus within 30 days after service, no later than five months after public announcement. The act does not establish a subsequent review.

Outcome of this decision

Management-cost arrears, accrued late-payment interest and 211.54 euros* in costs were awarded by default. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security; continuing late-payment interest and actual performance are not established.
2-14-311

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 45a korteriühistu · 80250416

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesWater and sewerageCalculation of water chargesRepairs and shared propertyBasement, stairwell and shared roomsOrganisation and funding of repairsPayment accounting and set-offLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

Latest prepared act · · № 2-14-311/35

Editorial summary

The appeal court found sufficient evidence of the whole debt.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 2
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-14-311/35Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Repair and water-circulation charges

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Puškini 45A Korteriühistu · Täisühing Mašuk · 80250416 · 10444548

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and appellant — Puškini 45A Korteriühistu; defendant — Täisühing Mašuk

Editorial summary

The appeal court found sufficient evidence of the whole debt.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Puškini 45A Korteriühistu (now — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 45a korteriühistu). Puškini 45A Korteriühistu claimed management charges from Täisühing Mašuk. The company disputed water-circulation, stairwell-repair and paving charges, relying on a separate entrance, and sought to offset courtyard-road costs. The county court awarded the admitted 257.26 euros, refusing the remainder and the set-off. The association appealed the refusal of 162.57 euros and costs; refusal of set-off was not reviewed. The circuit court considered meeting decisions, repair documents and the summer water-circulation methodology sufficient. A separate entrance did not remove common-cost obligations. The appeal succeeded: the total debt is 419.83 euros, including the earlier award. Costs in both instances were imposed on the company without fixing their monetary amount in this judgment.

Outcome of this decision

Appeal allowed; total debt 419.83 euros and costs in both instances borne by the company.
· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-311/25Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Proof of building charges and set-off for courtyard road expenses

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Puškini 45A Korteriühistu · Täisühing MAŠUK · 80250416 · 10444548

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Association — claimant; Täisühing MAŠUK — defendant, non-residential unit owner

Editorial summary

Initially, part of the charges and the amount of the proposed set-off were not proved. The later appeal assessed the principal-debt evidence differently and awarded the full principal; the set-off was not reconsidered.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Puškini 45A Korteriühistu (now — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 45a korteriühistu). Puškini 45A Korteriühistu sought 419.83 euros in principal and 6.34 euros in late-payment interest from Täisühing MAŠUK. The company admitted 257.26 euros, disputed water circulation charges and other items, and sought to set off 3 466.54 euros spent on a courtyard road. The court found invoices insufficient to prove all costs and their allocation. It accepted that the road works were necessary and that set-off was possible in principle, but the amount was supported only by the defendant’s calculation rather than cost documents. Later, on 16 October 2015, Tartu Ringkonnakohus reversed refusal of the remaining 162.57 euros in principal: total principal awarded became 419.83 euros instead of 257.26 euros. Täisühing MAŠUK bears costs in both instances. Refusal of the set-off was not appealed or reviewed.

Outcome of this decision

Initially, the admitted principal of 257.26 euros was awarded, the remaining claim and set-off were refused, and each party bore its own costs. On 16 October 2015, Tartu Ringkonnakohus reversed refusal of the remaining 162.57 euros in principal: total principal awarded became 419.83 euros instead of 257.26 euros. Täisühing MAŠUK bears all costs in both instances. Refusal of the set-off was not appealed or reviewed; this change did not award additional late-payment interest.