Legal archive: reviews of court practice concerning Narva apartment associations

XX challenged heating, service, room-use, advertising and waste charges imposed by KÜ Puškini tn 12, as well as general meeting decisions from 2003, 2005 and 2008. XX alleged lack of meeting notice, an overstated calculation area and the absence of a written room-use agreement. The circuit court upheld dismissal on distinct grounds. Under the three-month rule applied in this case, time ran from learning of a decision, not necessarily receiving the minutes. The court found that XX should have known of the decisions by the time a notarised debt agreement was made. The challenge was late, so the substantive allegations about meeting notice were not examined. Charges for the period covered by the notarised agreement were not set aside because the agreement remained valid and had not been terminated. Later payments were assessed against the meeting decisions that remained in force. Lack of a written agreement did not exclude a room-use charge: the court found an oral lease. For heating and services it considered an invoice recalculated using the actual area. XX had not identified the later months or charges left uncorrected. The appeal was dismissed and costs in both courts left with XX. Whether good faith could prevent enforcement of a meeting decision was not assessed, as no such claim had been made.

Claimant XX, the owner of non-residential premises, challenged charges made by the apartment association Puškini tn. 12. The claimant referred to an overstated floor area used for heating charges, payments for rent, advertising and waste collection, and the lack of an opportunity to examine meeting decisions in time. In an amended claim, the claimant sought to have decisions from 2003, 2005 and 2008, and the charges based on them, set aside. The association objected that the claimant was its member, could participate in management and obtain documents, and had missed the time limit for challenging decisions. It also reported recalculating heating charges according to the area of the property. The court examined these positions and noted that, under the law applied at the time, decisions on management of the building were binding on association members. The claimant argued that the minutes had only been received with the defence in December 2010. The court found it unproven that the claimant had learned of the disputed decisions only then: the claimant had known about the disputed payments by January 2010, but formulated the specific request to set aside the decisions in January 2011. The court concluded that the three-month time limit for bringing the challenge had expired. By its judgment of 5 August 2011, the court dismissed the claim in full. Claimant XX was left to bear both the claimant’s own costs and the association’s costs; their monetary amount was not determined in the operative part. The court dismissed the claim because the time limit had expired and the decisions remained binding; it did not separately examine the correctness of every monthly charge. It referred specifically to the recalculation of heating charges confirmed by an invoice. On 27 February 2012, Tartu Ringkonnakohus dismissed claimant XX’s appeal and left the judgment of 5 August 2011 unchanged. Costs in both courts remained with XX.

OÜ Esteetilise Meditsiini Keskus Gratsija challenged the meeting decision of 1 April 2010 concerning the management plan and different cost allocation for individual and corporate owners. The plan used rates of 82.91 kroons/m² and 125.79 kroons/m². The association argued that corporate owners consumed more services. The county court invalidated the parts amending clause 4.2.e of the articles and introducing different management-cost calculations for the two groups. The circuit court upheld that result. Departure from an area-based method was possible, but the articles had to specify which costs were allocated differently and how. Owner status alone was insufficient. The wording used the type of owner, rather than objectively measured consumption. Corporate ownership did not itself prove greater service use. The court also rejected the allegation that the judgment exceeded the claim. The claimant clarified its purpose after initially unavailable documents were obtained, and the issues were discussed with the parties. Inadequate clarification at the preliminary stage had not produced an incorrect outcome here. The appeal was dismissed and costs left with the association. Only specified parts of the decision were invalidated, not the whole management plan without distinction.

OÜ Esteetilise Meditsiini Keskus Gratsija challenged decisions of the apartment association Puškini 20’s meeting of 1 April 2010. The company objected to changes to the articles of association and management plan that allowed maintenance charges to be calculated differently for individuals and legal entities. The claimant argued for payment in proportion to floor area and also said it had not been given the draft plan. The association justified the additional burden of business premises by reference to visitors, security, cleaning and maintenance of common areas. It argued that distributing additional costs equally would be unfair and that the necessary documents had been sent to the claimant. The annual plan applied different calculation figures to the two groups: 82,91 and 125,79 kroons per square metre. The court found that floor area was used for everyone, but the rates differed according to the category of owner and the use of the premises. Applying the rules then in force, it distinguished an alternative method of allocating particular types of costs from different maintenance rates for different groups. In the court’s view, the option to provide a different calculation method in the articles did not justify introducing such different rates. The court disagreed that the draft management plan had not been supplied at all, but noted that the allocation method had not been sent to the claimant. By its judgment of 29 September 2010, it granted the claim, setting aside the relevant part of the amendment to clause 4.2e of the articles and the part of the management plan providing for a special calculation of costs. This set aside specific provisions; it did not declare all the meeting’s decisions void. The association was ordered to bear the claimant’s costs as well as its own; the judgment did not determine their monetary amount. On 24 October 2011, Tartu Ringkonnakohus dismissed the association’s appeal and left the judgment of 29 September 2010 unchanged. The specified provisions therefore remained invalidated.