Skip to decisions
Žuk — ANTON и JELENA

Narva apartment associations Court decisions

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

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

Subjects and subtopics

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

Additional parameters

Reset all
Case 2-24-145726Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 46 korteriühistu · 80170555

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

How it started · editorial summary

Two persons XX agreed on joint and several instalments with the association.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-24-145726/7Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Joint and several instalments and breach consequences

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 46 korteriühistu · 80170555

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 46 korteriühistu; two persons concerned XX — joint and several debtors; applicant representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

Two persons XX agreed on joint and several instalments with the association.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court approved a settlement between Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 46 korteriühistu and two persons XX and terminated proceedings. The settlement preceded the order; participants confirmed compliance with the schedule as of August. This does not establish full repayment or absence of later default. Liability is joint and several: the unpaid balance may be claimed from either debtor without double recovery. The obligation includes management-charge debt, accrued late-payment interest, a 25-euro fee and 166.80 euros in legal costs, payable in thirteen instalments. Breach makes the whole obligation immediately payable and entitles the association to late-payment interest of 0.03% per day on the unpaid management-cost amount specified in the interest clause from 1 January 2025. The general costs clause leaves costs with participants; no separate reimbursement beyond the settlement was ordered.

Outcome of this decision

Settlement approved and proceedings terminated; joint and several instalments and conditional late-payment interest retained.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Terminate proceedings in civil case no. 2-24-145726.
First instance
Case 2-22-11087Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 18 korteriühistu · 80015336

Apartment association meetings and decisionsBudget, management plan and ratesArticles of association and amendmentsDocuments and informationReporting and review of expenditureRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairsBasement, stairwell and shared roomsParking and grounds

How it started · editorial summary

Two applicants XX sought to set aside two owners’ decision items concerning accounting review and a management plan.

· Final ruling on an application challenging general meeting decisionsViru Maakohus (Narva) · First instance · № 2-22-11087/67Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kivilinna tn 18: two decisions set aside after reconsideration

Final ruling on an application challenging general meeting decisions · Viru Maakohus (Narva) · First instance

Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 18 korteriühistu · 80015336

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: two applicants — XX; interested person — Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 18 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

Two applicants XX sought to set aside two owners’ decision items concerning accounting review and a management plan.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Two applicants XX challenged items 3 and 4 of Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 18 korteriühistu’s owners’ decision of 31 May 2022. Voting took place without a meeting. Item 3 concerned choosing an accounting organisation to check documents and authorising the board to choose a proposal; item 4 concerned the 2022 management plan. The applicants alleged that transferring control functions conflicted with the articles’ audit committee provision. For the plan, they cited missing mandatory information on common property condition, intended works, reserves and projected service consumption. They also objected to insufficiently justified parking and basement electrical system costs. The act presents these as applicants’ arguments. The first ruling of 9 January 2025 granted the application, but Tartu Ringkonnakohus set it aside and remitted the case. The grounds were breach of the right to be heard and partly insufficient reasoning; the appeal did not end the dispute by finally rejecting the applicants’ claims. On reconsideration the association admitted the claims in full. On 27 August 2025, the court therefore again granted the application and set aside specifically items 3 and 4. This result rests on admission, not a fresh detailed assessment of every objection to the management plan. Of the applicants’ 1150 euros in costs, the agreed 800 euros was allocated to the association. The applicants bear the other 350 euros. Appeal was available within 15 days after service.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the application and set aside items 3 and 4 of the decision of 31.05.2022. Allocate 800 euros in costs to the association, with the remaining 350 euros left to applicants.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Grant the application. […] 2. Set aside items 3 and 4 of Kivilinna tn 18 korteriühistu’s apartment owners’ decision of 31.05.2022.
First instance
Case 2-25-117421Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 5 korteriühistu · 80180523

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsInstalments and payment schedulesPayment accounting and set-off

How it started · editorial summary

The settlement provides for instalments and applies only payments exceeding current undisputed bills to the old debt.

· Order approving a settlementViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-25-117421/3Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

A. Puškini tn 5: instalments and allocation of current payments

Order approving a settlement · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 5 korteriühistu · 80180523

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 5 korteriühistu; Debtor — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The settlement provides for instalments and applies only payments exceeding current undisputed bills to the old debt.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 5 korteriühistu brought a claim against XX in payment-order proceedings. The participants agreed on the debt and payment, submitted a settlement and requested termination. Following transfer from Pärnu Maakohus, Viru Maakohus approved it on 27 August 2025. XX acknowledged the principal and undertook to reimburse 45 euros in association costs: 25 euros in state fees and 20 euros in other procedural costs. The association waived other claims. There are 33 monthly payments with seasonal amounts: higher from May to October and lower from November to April, with a separate final amount. Early payment is permitted. Performance of the schedule is not established. Current undisputed bills must be paid in addition: only the excess above them counts toward the old debt under the settlement. Full or partial delay in an instalment makes the entire unpaid balance enforceable. After performance, no mutual claims remain in the case. The court found the settlement permissible and enforceable and ended proceedings. Each participant bears other costs. The agreed appeal period was shortened to two days from service.

Outcome of this decision

Approve monthly payment of the principal and 45 euros in costs. Current undisputed bills remain separately payable; only the excess is applied to old debt. Full or partial delay makes the entire unpaid balance enforceable. End proceedings; participants bear other costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1.5. If instalments specified in clause 1.2 are delayed, including in part, the entire unpaid debt is recoverable in enforcement proceedings (compulsory enforcement). […] 2. End the proceedings in civil case no. 2-25-117421.
First instance
Case 2-25-115607Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 14 korteriühistu · 80175564

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

How it started · editorial summary

Debtor XX requested a schedule; after transfer, the participants submitted a signed agreement whose dates the court clarified.

· Order approving a settlement and ending proceedingsViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-25-115607/5Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kangelaste prospekt 14: instalments and late-payment interest

Order approving a settlement and ending proceedings · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 14 korteriühistu · 80175564

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 14 korteriühistu; Debtor — XX

How it started · editorial summary

Debtor XX requested a schedule; after transfer, the participants submitted a signed agreement whose dates the court clarified.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 14 korteriühistu sought a debt from XX through expedited payment-order proceedings. XX objected and requested a schedule. No agreement was initially submitted, so the case went to Viru Maakohus, which allowed time to correct the application or settle. On 8 August 2025, the participants submitted a signed settlement. The court approved a total obligation including costs and monthly payments. Its separate components and the reasons for reducing it from the original claim are not disclosed. The court removed a repeated date in the draft schedule so that only one payment fell in each month. This was the court’s own correction, which it considered did not alter the settlement’s substance. Delay attracts late-payment interest of 0.1% per day on the amount paid late. This is not an automatic acceleration of the whole balance. After proper performance, the association has no remaining property claims under the agreement. Proceedings ended; each bears other costs. The agreed appeal period is one day from service. Actual payment is not established.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the settlement covering the total debt including costs, monthly payments and late-payment interest of 0.1% per day on amounts paid late. The court corrected the repeated date and ended the proceedings.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. End the civil proceedings. […] 4. Leave each participant to bear litigation costs not specified in the settlement. There are no litigation costs to be reimbursed.
First instance
Case 2-24-15880Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 17 korteriühistu · 80170377

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesObligations of multiple ownersHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairs

How it started · editorial summary

The court checked the basis of charges and limited the recovery period.

· Court orderViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-24-15880/39Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Proof of charges and joint and several recovery

Court order · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 17 korteriühistu · 80170377

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 17 korteriühistu; three persons concerned XX — jointly and severally liable owners; association representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

The court checked the basis of charges and limited the recovery period.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 17 korteriühistu sought joint and several payment from three persons XX for services, repair-fund contributions, gas-equipment maintenance and heating. This is one common sum, not separate full recovery from each. The court checked the claim despite incomplete responses. Meeting decisions, a management plan, contracts and supplier invoices supported the charges; bills sent to the owner alone are insufficient. Payments were credited. Debt for 1 June 2023–30 April 2025 was proved; debt from May 2025 was not awarded. The application was allowed in part. Of 850 euros sought for legal costs, 300 euros were accepted for proved representative activities; with a 50-euro fee, 350 euros were awarded jointly and severally. Duplicate documents were removed from the file.

Outcome of this decision

Proven debt and 350 euros in costs awarded jointly and severally; later debt not awarded.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Allow the application of Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 17 korteriühistu in part.
First instance
Case 2-25-111135Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Malmi tn 4 korteriühistu · 80189939

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

How it started · editorial summary

After payment-order proceedings began, the association and debtor XX agreed on the acknowledged obligation and additional time to pay.

· Order approving a settlementViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-25-111135/3Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Malmi tn 4: acknowledgment of debt and additional time to pay

Order approving a settlement · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Malmi tn 4 korteriühistu · 80189939

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, Malmi tn 4 korteriühistu; Debtor — XX

How it started · editorial summary

After payment-order proceedings began, the association and debtor XX agreed on the acknowledged obligation and additional time to pay.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Malmi tn 4 korteriühistu sought payment of debt and costs through expedited payment-order proceedings. After service of a payment proposal, the participants agreed on the obligation and instalments. Their signed text was submitted for approval and the case transferred from Pärnu Maakohus to Viru Maakohus. On 5 August 2025, the court approved the settlement. XX acknowledged unpaid management costs and accrued late-payment interest; the obligation also includes 25 euros in state fees and 166.80 euros in legal costs. The association granted additional time for fifteen voluntary monthly payments. Breach makes the entire obligation immediately payable. On breach, the association may demand the agreed late-payment interest of 0.02% per day on the originally acknowledged management-cost principal from 1 July 2025. The court found the settlement permissible and enforceable and ended the case. Participants bear other costs. The order does not establish that payments were made.

Outcome of this decision

Approve monthly payment of the acknowledged debt, late-payment interest, 25 euros in state fees and 166.80 euros in legal costs. Breach triggers immediate payment and late-payment interest of 0.02% per day on the originally acknowledged management-cost principal from 1 July 2025. End proceedings.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1.4. The debtor acknowledges the obligation specified in clause 1.3 of the settlement. […] 2. End the proceedings in civil case no. 2-25-111135.
First instance
Case 2-23-13839Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kraavi tn 7 korteriühistu · 80265592

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesApartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the board

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought unpaid management and utility charges. XX challenged the documents, heating allocation and liability after the property was sold.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-23-13839/25Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Debt to an apartment association: heating calculations and board authority

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kraavi tn 7 korteriühistu · 80265592

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, Kraavi tn 7 korteriühistu; Person concerned and counter-applicant — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought unpaid management and utility charges. XX challenged the documents, heating allocation and liability after the property was sold.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Kraavi tn 7 korteriühistu sought unpaid building management and utility charges. XX disputed the reliability of invoices and meeting minutes, the board’s authority and allocation of heating costs by floor area. XX also argued that liability ended with the auction sale of the property. The court examined the debt calculation, invoices, management plans, minutes and supplier contracts. It found allegations of forged documents and missing required signatures unproved, checked powers of attorney and found no violation in extending a board member’s term. It found that costs in this case were calculated according to the ownership share. XX had not established grounds for another allocation or refusal to pay on good-faith grounds. The absence of an energy audit did not by itself remove liability. The court linked transfer of the owner’s obligations to registration of title, rather than receipt of the auction instrument. The association’s application was granted. A request for repayment of excess heating charges submitted after the deadline for final submissions was not admitted as a counter-application in these proceedings. It was sent for registration as a separate application; its merits were not decided by this order.

Outcome of this decision

The debt was awarded to the association. XX must bear procedural costs, whose amount will be determined separately after the order becomes final. The heating repayment claim was sent for registration as a separate application.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Grant the application of Narva linn, Kraavi tn 7 korteriühistu. […] Order XX to bear the procedural costs.
First instance
Case 2-23-1406Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kraavi tn 14 korteriühistu · 80280195

Water and seweragePipes, risers and sewerageDamage and insuranceLeaks and floodingCause and proof of damageAmount of compensationInsurance payment and insurer’s claim

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer brought a transferred claim concerning a blockage in shared drainage; the association denied breach and pointed to a possible cause inside an apartment.

· Ruling on a damages demandViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-23-1406/7Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kraavi tn 14: liability for a blockage in shared drainage

Ruling on a damages demand · Viru Maakohus · First instance

AB “Lietuvos draudimas“ · AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ Eesti filiaal · Narva linn, Kraavi tn 14 korteriühistu · 110051834 · 12831829 · 80280195

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant, insurer — AB “Lietuvos draudimas“ through its Estonian branch AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ Eesti filiaal; interested person — Narva linn, Kraavi tn 14 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer brought a transferred claim concerning a blockage in shared drainage; the association denied breach and pointed to a possible cause inside an apartment.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Insurer AB “Lietuvos draudimas“, acting through its Estonian branch, sought reimbursement from Narva linn, Kraavi tn 14 korteriühistu of 1876 euros paid for apartment damage in flooding on 11 June 2022, plus interest and costs. It attributed the incident to a blockage in shared drainage and inadequate system maintenance. The association objected that pipes were sound and a foreign object or equipment inside an individual apartment, for which the owner was responsible, might have caused the blockage. It cited a later pipe survey and sought reduced compensation if necessary. The insurer replied that no particular object or owner action had been proved and several apartments were flooded. The court found a blockage in the shared sewer pipe itself. Inspection reports, photographs and explanations did not substantiate faulty individual equipment, and water entering through it did not mean the blockage originated there. A survey conducted much later showed pipe condition on another date, not proper inspection and cleaning before the incident. The association did not prove necessary measures or excusability of the breach. After payment, the owner’s claim passed to the applicant. The court found damage, causation and the association’s liability for maintaining common property proved. It refused to reduce compensation: victim contribution and exceptional unfairness of full compensation were not proved. On 3 July 2025, it awarded 1876 euros and 27,66 euros in interest as of 26 January 2023. Although its calculation produced higher interest, it stayed within the amount claimed. Under the operative part, further statutory interest runs from 27 January 2023 until payment. It also awarded 712 euros in costs, comprising 662 euros for legal assistance and a 50 euro fee, with interest on costs from entry into force.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the application: award 1876 euros in damages, 27,66 euros in accrued late-payment interest, further statutory late-payment interest from 27.01.2023, 712 euros in costs and late-payment interest on costs from entry into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Grant AB “Lietuvos draudimas“’s application for damages against Narva linn, Kraavi tn 14 korteriühistu.
First instance
Case 2-22-14923Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Vestervalli tn 6 korteriühistu · 80170874

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesChanges to or disconnection from heatingApartment association meetings and decisionsArticles of association and amendmentsBudget, management plan and rates

How it started · editorial summary

The court granted owner XX’s request to recalculate maintenance and heating. The association did not substantiate exclusion of some premises from cost allocation.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-14923/25Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Vestervalli tn 6: court ordered recalculation of maintenance and heating charges

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Vestervalli tn 6 korteriühistu · 80170874

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant XX — owner; interested person — Narva linn, Vestervalli tn 6 korteriühistu; applicant’s representative XX; association’s representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

The court granted owner XX’s request to recalculate maintenance and heating. The association did not substantiate exclusion of some premises from cost allocation.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Owner XX obtained recalculation of charges from the apartment association Narva linn, Vestervalli tn 6. The court declared the maintenance and heating debt claimed against the owner absent as of 31 December 2024. The dispute concerned the floor area used to allocate common costs. The owner relied on the common ownership share and full premises area in the land register. The association excluded some non-residential premises and also accounted for some premises switching to independent heating. The applicant sought a declaration of no debt and an order to change the calculation. After clarification, the association accepted absence of maintenance debt but continued opposing the heating demands, relying on meeting decisions, articles and technical system features. The court examined the claims fully despite partial admission. For maintenance, the association did not prove a proper basis for allocating costs other than by common ownership shares. The court accepted the applicant’s calculation. For heating, it distinguished the ability to change the system from the basis for allocating costs afterwards. It did not find it proved that switching to independent heating itself required every owner’s consent. However, Vestervalli tn 6’s articles lacked sufficiently specific cost redistribution rules for this situation. The court did not accept meeting decisions as a substitute for the necessary agreement. It excluded another association’s articles as irrelevant to the dispute. The ruling of 30 June 2025 declared no maintenance debt of 724,07 euros or heating debt of 885,76* euros for August 2021 to December 2024 and ordered recalculation. Costs were allocated to the association, with the amount set separately. The court decided charges for that period, rather than awarding repayment of those sums to the applicant.

Outcome of this decision

Declare that applicant XX owes the association no maintenance debt of 724,07 euros or heating debt of 885,76* euros as of 31.12.2024 for August 2021 to December 2024. Require recalculation of those payments. Allocate costs to the association and determine the amount separately after entry into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
6. Narva linn, Vestervalli tn 6 korteriühistu shall bear the procedural costs.
First instance
Case 2-24-101553Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Energia tn 3 korteriühistu · 80189425

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesPayment accounting and set-offLimitation of claimsApartment association meetings and decisionsBudget, management plan and ratesApartment association board and managementAuthority and representationLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

How it started · editorial summary

XX challenged the service rate for non-residential premises and relied on limitation; the association sought payment under general-meeting resolutions.

· Court order in non-contentious proceedingsViru Maakohus Jõhvi kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-24-101553/29Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Energia tn 3: rates, allocation of payments and limitation

Court order in non-contentious proceedings · Viru Maakohus Jõhvi kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Energia tn 3 korteriühistu · 80189425

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, Energia tn 3 korteriühistu; Person concerned, owner — XX

How it started · editorial summary

XX challenged the service rate for non-residential premises and relied on limitation; the association sought payment under general-meeting resolutions.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Energia tn 3 korteriühistu sought management-cost arrears and late-payment interest from XX concerning non-residential premises. The association relied on general-meeting resolutions and argued that partial payment restarted limitation for the old debt. XX challenged the rate, relied on an individual arrangement with the board and pleaded partial limitation. The court found that ordinary payments specified particular months, so they could not arbitrarily be allocated to older debt. A separate payment marked “debt” discharged earlier obligations but did not acknowledge the whole balance. Unpaid 2020 charges were time-barred when proceedings began in January 2024. Other rate objections failed on the meeting records. The board could not set an individual rate contrary to the general resolution. The order cited the appellate court’s view that rates differing solely by natural- or legal-person status could make a resolution void. This operative part did not itself annul the rate resolution. The application was partly allowed: principal, accrued and further statutory late-payment interest until payment were awarded. XX bears 73% of association costs; clause5 awards 1283.12* euros. Statutory late-payment interest on costs also runs from entry into force. Actual payment is not established.

Outcome of this decision

Allow the application in part: award principal, accrued and further statutory late-payment interest until payment. XX bears 73% of association costs; clause5 awards 1283.12* euros. Statutory late-payment interest on costs also runs from entry into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Allow the application of Narva linn, Energia tn 3 korteriühistu in part.
First instance
Case 2-25-112830Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Rakvere tn 20, Rakvere tn 20a, Rakvere tn 20b, Rakvere tn 20c korteriühistu · 80180335

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsInstalments and payment schedulesPayment accounting and set-offLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

How it started · editorial summary

The association and XX agreed on instalments, priority allocation of payments and the consequences of delay.

· Order approving a settlement and ending proceedingsViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-25-112830/3Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Rakvere tn 20 and associated buildings: allocation of instalment payments

Order approving a settlement and ending proceedings · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Rakvere tn 20, Rakvere tn 20a, Rakvere tn 20b, Rakvere tn 20c korteriühistu · 80180335

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, Rakvere tn 20, Rakvere tn 20a, Rakvere tn 20b, Rakvere tn 20c korteriühistu; Debtor — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association and XX agreed on instalments, priority allocation of payments and the consequences of delay.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Rakvere tn 20, Rakvere tn 20a, Rakvere tn 20b, Rakvere tn 20c korteriühistu sought a debt from XX. After service of a payment proposal, the participants agreed on the obligation and instalment terms. The case was transferred to Viru Maakohus, which approved the settlement and ended proceedings without deciding the original dispute on its merits. The acknowledged obligation includes utility and management arrears, late-payment interest and association costs. Monthly instalments and a separate final payment are required. Current bills are payable in addition. If a transfer cannot cover both the current bill and the instalment, it is applied to the settlement first. Current bills remain payable. A delay exceeding 15 days permits recovery of the entire unpaid balance through enforcement. Those 15 days also constitute the additional period for performance; no further period is required. Participants bear other costs themselves. They waived appeal; the order’s entry into force is linked to service. Performance of the schedule is not established.

Outcome of this decision

Approve instalments and end the proceedings. Current bills remain payable separately; an insufficient transfer is applied to the settlement first. A delay exceeding 15 days permits recovery of the whole balance; those days already constitute the additional performance period. Each participant bears other costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. End the proceedings in civil case no. 2-25-112830. […] 3. The parties’ litigation costs have been determined in the settlement. Other litigation costs incurred by the parties remain for each to bear.
First instance
Case 2-24-6934Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Soldina tn 10 korteriühistu · 80170667

Documents and informationInspection and copies of documentsReporting and review of expenditureContracts, loans and bank documents

How it started · editorial summary

Owner XX obtained access to the association’s 2023 documents. The court rejected refusal based on advance payment and an unproved risk of harm to others.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-24-6934/17Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Soldina tn 10: court ordered access to documents without a 15-euro advance fee

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Soldina tn 10 korteriühistu · 80170667

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant XX – owner; interested person – Narva linn, Soldina tn 10 korteriühistu; applicant’s representative XX; association representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

Owner XX obtained access to the association’s 2023 documents. The court rejected refusal based on advance payment and an unproved risk of harm to others.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court required the apartment association Narva linn, Soldina tn 10 to provide owner XX with documents for 2023. The association had not established grounds to refuse access or make it conditional on a 15-euro advance payment. The owner requested meeting minutes with attendance sheets, a list of incoming invoices, bank statements of receipts and payments, supplier invoices and board members’ expense reports. The association supplied only some minutes. The applicant went to court to check spending of shared funds. The association objected that it had previously allowed access, and the applicant had declined a new opportunity because of the fee. It relied on a procedure approved at a meeting, protection of others’ interests and the presence of an auditor. It also alleged bad faith by the applicant. The court found that the application after partial refusal was timely. Access to documents follows from association membership and is not replaced by an auditor. Each joint owner may request information independently. The association did not explain who would suffer what significant harm from access or prove bad faith. The advance fee was unjustified: its components and actual expenses were not established. The court distinguished electronic from paper documents. Existing electronic copies must be sent within 15 days after finality. Paper documents must be made available at the association’s registered location within the same period; at least two possible dates must be offered within five working days. The court did not require electronic copies of every paper document to be created. The receipts statement may conceal names, account numbers and payment descriptions identifying unrelated individuals. For payments made, the court accepted the owner’s interest in checking recipients and purposes of expenses. Litigation costs were imposed on the association, to be quantified separately.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the application. Provide the 2023 minutes with attendance sheets, incoming invoice list, receipts and payments bank statements, supplier invoices and board expense reports. Send electronic documents within 15 days after finality. For paper documents, offer at least two dates within five working days and provide access at the association’s location within 15 days. Unrelated individuals’ data may be concealed in the receipts statement. The association bears costs, to be quantified separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
5. Narva linn, Soldina tn 10 korteriühistu shall bear all litigation costs.
First instance