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 2-14-311Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

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

How it started · 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

How it started · 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.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. Allow the appeal.
Appeal
· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-311/25Read act

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

How it started · 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.

A checked extract in this language is not yet available.

First instance
Case 2-14-52077Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 7 korteriühistu · 80183693

Documents and informationInspection and copies of documentsContracts, loans and bank documentsExplanations of charges and paymentsApartment association bills, payments and debtsBills and justification of charges

How it started · editorial summary

Claimant XX and the apartment association Pähklimäe 7/11 agreed on provision of documents and a loan payment of no more than 7,32 euros per month. The court approved the agreement and terminated the case.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-52077/33Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Court approved provision of loan documents and a monthly payment limit

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Pähklimäe 7/11 · 80183693

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant XX — sought documents and determination of the loan payment.; Defendant KÜ Pähklimäe 7/11 — assumed obligations under the agreement.

How it started · editorial summary

Claimant XX and the apartment association Pähklimäe 7/11 agreed on provision of documents and a loan payment of no more than 7,32 euros per month. The court approved the agreement and terminated the case.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Claimant XX asked the court to require the apartment association Pähklimäe 7/11 to provide loan documents and determine the monthly payment. At the hearing on 14 July 2015, the parties agreed on a list of documents and explanations. The association undertook to provide annex 1 to the loan agreement, the minutes of the meeting of 16 June 2008 with the participant list, a statement of payments to Danske Bank AS from 10 July 2008 to 25 June 2015, and explanations of the calculation of loan payments. The parties confirmed the claimant’s right to pay no more than 7,32 euros per month towards the loan. A change in how loan repayment was shown on monthly invoices was also noted. The court found the terms lawful and enforceable, approved the settlement and terminated the case. Each party bears its own costs. After termination, the same parties cannot bring the same claim again; an unperformed agreement can be enforced through a bailiff. Performance of the agreement is not confirmed.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement on providing loan documents and explanations and on the claimant’s right to pay no more than 7,32 euros per month. Terminate the case; leave each party to bear its own costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Terminate the proceedings in civil case No 2-14-52077.
First instance
Case 2-14-7482Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kosmonaudi tn 9, Linda tn 7 korteriühistu · 80180884

Water and sewerageAllocation of water consumption and discrepanciesCalculation of water chargesMeters and readingsApartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

How it started · editorial summary

The apartment association NARVA UNISTUS did not prove grounds for allocating additional water costs to one owner. All monetary claims against defendant XX were dismissed.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-7482/51Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Court refused recovery of charges for unaccounted-for water: the charge was not proved

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KORTERIÜHISTU NARVA UNISTUS · 80180884

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant KORTERIÜHISTU NARVA UNISTUS — sought debt and late-payment interest.; Defendant XX — challenged the additional water charge.

How it started · editorial summary

The apartment association NARVA UNISTUS did not prove grounds for allocating additional water costs to one owner. All monetary claims against defendant XX were dismissed.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The association linked the debt to a meeting decision of 29 April 2013 charging one owner 300 euros for alleged unaccounted-for water consumption. It claimed that faulty plumbing allowed water to drip without being recorded by the meter. The defendant denied these allegations and challenged both the inspection reports and the calculation. The initial claim sought 398,27 euros in debt, 51,67 euros in late-payment interest and further interest of 0,07% per day. At the hearing, the association sought 297,95 euros in principal and 130,03 euros in interest. The court found that the disputed balance related to the additional water charge, while the defendant had paid the other charges, which the claimant did not dispute. To recover the money, the association had to prove the total water costs and the basis for allocating them among owners. Invoices and an approved report alone were insufficient. The total costs and allocation data were not submitted to the court. Nor did the meeting minutes explain why the 300 euros was charged only to the defendant. The court regarded the theory of collecting water drop by drop as speculative: the volume of such consumption had not been proved. In its reasons, the court discussed the meeting decision’s conflict with the rules on allocating costs, but then stated that it could not establish the decision’s nullity — absence of legal effect from the time of adoption — because the defendant had not brought a separate claim within the time limit identified by the court. The operative part does not set aside the meeting decision: it dismisses all recovery claims. Costs were allocated to the association. The court identified no costs reimbursable to the defendant and therefore awarded no specific sum to the defendant. The judgment names the association as the apartment association NARVA UNISTUS (now — Narva linn, Kosmonaudi tn 9, Linda tn 7 korteriühistu).

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss all claims by the apartment association NARVA UNISTUS against defendant XX. Leave costs to the association; there are no costs reimbursable to the defendant.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. There are no procedural costs reimbursable to XX.
First instance
Case 2-13-21554Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 18 korteriühistu

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayBills and justification of chargesPayment accounting and set-offObligations of multiple owners

Latest prepared act · · № 2-13-21554/80

How it started · editorial summary

The court added reasons to its earlier refusal to award Harjaks Inkasso OÜ money against two defendants XX. It found payment of the debt to the association proved.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 1 · Unprepared stages: 1
· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-13-21554/80Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Supplemented judgment explained rejection of a debt collector’s claim: the earlier debt had been paid

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Harjaks Inkasso OÜ · KÜ Nartall 18 · 12341373 ·

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant Harjaks Inkasso OÜ — acquirer of the claim.; Two defendants XX — owners from whom a common amount was sought.; Apartment association Nartall 18 — previous creditor, not a party to this claim.

How it started · editorial summary

The court added reasons to its earlier refusal to award Harjaks Inkasso OÜ money against two defendants XX. It found payment of the debt to the association proved.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Harjaks Inkasso OÜ, which had acquired a claim from the apartment association Nartall 18, sought to recover 1 306,52 euros jointly and severally from two owners: 722,44 euros in principal and 584,08 euros in late-payment interest, together with further interest of 0,07% per day from 1 August 2013, capped at the principal. One defendant disputed the calculation and submitted invoices and payment certificates. The second did not respond to the claim. The court refused to enter a default judgment solely against the second defendant: in this dispute, the existence and amount of the common debt had to be determined jointly for both. The court interpreted the first defendant’s written acknowledgement as confirming an existing debt rather than creating a new independent obligation. The debtor could therefore challenge it without a separate counterclaim. The court found the assignment to the debt collector proved, but that did not exclude objections available against the previous creditor. The claimant’s calculation differed from the association’s invoices. The court found it proved that the debt had been paid by 13 June 2014. It did not accept in full another certificate stating there had been no debt throughout the period since 2010, because other documents confirmed the earlier debt. Nevertheless, the particular claim and interest sought could not be granted. The claim had already been dismissed in a short judgment on 23 October 2014. After the claimant announced an intention to appeal, the court added a factual description and reasons while maintaining full dismissal. Costs were left to the debt collector. The court corrected the value of the claim from 1 444,88 euros to 1 491,10 euros; this is a procedural valuation, not an award of money.

Outcome of this decision

Supplement the judgment of 23 October 2014 with a factual description and reasons. Dismiss Harjaks Inkasso OÜ’s claim against the two defendants for joint and several debt and late-payment interest. Leave costs to the claimant; correct the claim value to 1 491,10 euros.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. Leave procedural costs to Harjaks Inkasso OÜ.
First instance
Not prepared yet

· Case 2-13-21554 · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Case 2-13-34554Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 44 korteriühistu · 80183227

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayBills and justification of chargesRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairsApartment association meetings and decisionsBudget, management plan and rates

Latest prepared act · · № 2-13-34554/54

How it started · editorial summary

The court added reasons to its earlier judgment in favour of the apartment association Tallinna 44: defendant XX was ordered to pay a 40-euro special contribution, 7,16 euros in late-payment interest and 190 euros in costs.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 1 · Unprepared stages: 1
· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-13-34554/54Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

A supplemented judgment explained the award of 40 euros for replacing electrical panels

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Tallinna 44 · 80183227

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant KÜ Tallinna 44 – sought the special contribution.; Defendant XX – disputed the basis for the contribution and late-payment interest.

How it started · editorial summary

The court added reasons to its earlier judgment in favour of the apartment association Tallinna 44: defendant XX was ordered to pay a 40-euro special contribution, 7,16 euros in late-payment interest and 190 euros in costs.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The association sought an unpaid special contribution for replacing electrical panels, set by the meeting of 4 May 2011. The defendant argued that an equal contribution was inconsistent with the floor-area allocation in the articles, that no separate decision authorised late-payment interest, and that less had been spent on the work than collected. On 11 July 2014, the court granted the claim in an abbreviated judgment. After the defendant announced an intention to appeal, the court added the account of the case and its reasons. The award remained unchanged. The court found that the decision establishing the contribution had not been challenged and remained binding on the defendant. The unpaid 40 euros was supported by the calculation, accounts and minutes. The defendant had attended the meeting and received invoices stating a payment deadline of 30 November 2011. A total of 4 400 euros was collected for replacing the panels and 3 669,31 euros spent. The court concluded that the balance had been carried into the following year’s plan; the defendant had not challenged the decisions approving the report and plan either. The court derived the board’s right to charge late-payment interest from the law, so it did not require a separate meeting decision. The award comprised a 40-euro contribution and 7,16 euros in late-payment interest as at 1 May 2013, totalling 47,16 euros. Costs awarded were 60 euros in court fees and 130 euros for legal assistance, totalling 190 euros. The part of the court fee paid above the necessary amount was not imposed on the defendant: the claimant was informed of the right to seek reimbursement from the state budget.

Outcome of this decision

Supplement the judgment of 11 July 2014 with an account of the case and reasons. Order defendant XX to pay the apartment association Tallinna 44 a debt of 40 euros, 7,16 euros in late-payment interest and 190 euros in costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Grant the claim.
First instance
Not prepared yet

· Case 2-13-34554 · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Case 2-14-56479Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 42 korteriühistu · 80054903

HeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesChanges to or disconnection from heatingApartment association bills, payments and debtsBills and justification of chargesApartment association meetings and decisions

How it started · editorial summary

The claimant linked the disputed charges to floor area and changes to heating; the court found the proposed claim insufficient for the stated purpose.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-56479/6Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 42: claim seeking a declaration of no debt was not admitted

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Tallinna mnt 42 KÜ · 80054903

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — XX; Defendant — Tallinna mnt 42 KÜ

How it started · editorial summary

The claimant linked the disputed charges to floor area and changes to heating; the court found the proposed claim insufficient for the stated purpose.

The dispute and the court’s decision

XX sued Tallinna mnt 42 KÜ (now — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 42 korteriühistu), seeking a declaration of no debt and recalculation of management and utility payments. XX alleged that the association used an incorrect floor area and imposed an additional heating charge after changes to the heating system, also referring to board permission. These were the claimant’s allegations, not breaches established by the court. XX supplemented the claim after being given time to clarify it, but the court refused admission because the claim could not achieve its stated purpose. The charges relied on board and general-meeting decisions. XX considered those decisions void, but gave no grounds or supporting facts for nullity and did not wish to challenge them. The court referred to the binding nature of association decisions on management costs and found the claim insufficient for the requested result. No debt was awarded on its merits and no absence of debt was declared: the case was not admitted. All costs were imposed on XX. The court explained the right to apply separately for a refund of the paid state fee. An interlocutory appeal lies to Tartu Ringkonnakohus through Viru Maakohus within 15 days after service, no later than five months after the order. The source establishes no subsequent acts.

Outcome of this decision

Admission of the claim for a declaration of no debt and recalculation was refused. XX bears the costs; the right to request a state-fee refund was explained. Neither the merits of the debt nor unlawful heating charges were established by this act.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Refuse to admit XX’s claim against Tallinna mnt 42 KÜ seeking a declaration that no debt exists.
First instance
Case 2-08-12127Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 10 korteriühistu · 80038614

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesLate-payment interest and consequences of delayHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesRepairs and shared propertyRoof and atticOrganisation and funding of repairs

How it started · editorial summary

The court considered OÜ Filmarinar’s appeal against the Viru Maakohus judgment of 08.05.2012 on the apartment association Puškini 10’s claim for building management costs, earmarked contributions and late-payment interest. The claim after increases was 6 030,64 euros.

· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-08-12127/46Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Apartment association Puškini 10 v OÜ Filmarinar: award reduced, some utility costs unproven

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ Puškini 10 · OÜ Filmarinar · 80038614 · 10294341

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — KÜ Puškini 10; respondent to the appeal; defendant — OÜ Filmarinar; appellant; claimant’s representative XX — association’s statutory representative; defendant’s representative XX — company’s statutory representative

How it started · editorial summary

The court considered OÜ Filmarinar’s appeal against the Viru Maakohus judgment of 08.05.2012 on the apartment association Puškini 10’s claim for building management costs, earmarked contributions and late-payment interest. The claim after increases was 6 030,64 euros.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Puškini 10 sought payment from OÜ Filmarinar for building maintenance, earmarked contributions and services for the period from 1 March 2007 to 1 March 2011. After increases to the claim, the total was 6 030,64 euros. The association relied on an earlier agreement, meeting decisions, invoices and a schedule of charges. The defendant challenged the proof of costs, the documents and contractual grounds, as well as late-payment interest of 0,2% per day. On 8 May 2012, Viru Maakohus granted the claim in full. On the defendant’s appeal, the circuit court decided the case without remitting it to the first instance. It stated that an association member’s duty to pay for management of the building arises from the law; the existence of a document called an agreement does not itself make the relationship contractual. However, grounds for treating the earlier agreement as invalid or terminated had not been properly pleaded or proved in these proceedings. The court found the maintenance charge and earmarked roof repair contributions established by meeting decisions proven. For heating, waste collection and internet, however, the association’s invoices alone were insufficient: the actual costs and their allocation had to be proved. No additional evidence was submitted even after the appeal court invited it. That part of the claim was dismissed. The court also rejected the possibility of increasing by contract the statutory late-payment interest ceiling then applicable of 0,07% per day. The defendant’s allegations of damage were not determined as a counterclaim because no proper counterclaim had been filed. The appeal was partly allowed. The first-instance judgment was set aside, and a new judgment awarded 4 440,26 euros: 2 195,98 euros in principal and 2 244,28* euros in late-payment interest. Costs at both instances were allocated 73% to OÜ Filmarinar and 27% to the association.

Outcome of this decision

Set aside the Viru Maakohus judgment of 08.05.2012. Issue a new judgment partly granting the claim: order OÜ Filmarinar to pay the apartment association Puškini 10 a total of 4 440,26 euros for 01.03.2007–01.03.2011, comprising 2 195,98 euros in principal and 2 244,28* euros in late-payment interest. Partly allow the appeal. Allocate first-instance and appeal costs: 73% to OÜ Filmarinar and 27% to the apartment association Puškini 10.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. Partly allow OÜ Filmarinar’s appeal.
Appeal
Case 2-10-51755Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu · 80189721

HeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesApartment association bills, payments and debtsBills and justification of chargesApartment association meetings and decisionsBudget, management plan and ratesConvening meetings and advance notice
Latest known stageNot prepared yet

· Case 2-10-51755 · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Latest prepared act · · № 2-10-51755/12

How it started · editorial summary

Claimant XX challenged charges and meeting decisions on payments. The association relied on the time limit for challenging decisions and reported correcting the heating calculation.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 1 · Unprepared stages: 1
Not prepared yet

· Case 2-10-51755 · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-10-51755/12Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Puškini tn. 12: challenge to decisions and charges dismissed after expiry of the three-month time limit

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Puškini tn.12 korteriühistu · 80189721

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant XX — owner of non-residential premises; claimant’s adviser XX; defendant — Puškini tn.12 korteriühistu; association’s management board member XX; association’s contractual representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

Claimant XX challenged charges and meeting decisions on payments. The association relied on the time limit for challenging decisions and reported correcting the heating calculation.

The dispute and the court’s decision

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. This decision does not describe the subsequent course of the case.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss the claim challenging the charges in full. Leave the defendant association’s costs to claimant XX and the claimant’s own costs to the claimant. The operative part does not determine the monetary amount of reimbursement.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Dismiss […] the claim against Puškini tn. 12 korteriühistu […] in full. […] Leave the claimant’s procedural costs entirely to the claimant.
First instance
Case 2-10-22246Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 20 korteriühistu · 80061866

Apartment association meetings and decisionsArticles of association and amendmentsBudget, management plan and ratesApartment association bills, payments and debtsBills and justification of charges
Latest known stageNot prepared yet

· Case 2-10-22246 · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Latest prepared act · · № 2-10-22246/11

How it started · editorial summary

A company that was a member of the association challenged an amendment to the articles and a management plan establishing different maintenance rates for individuals and legal entities.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 1 · Unprepared stages: 1
Not prepared yet

· Case 2-10-22246 · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-10-22246/11Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Puškini 20: provisions imposing different rates for individuals and legal entities set aside

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

OÜ Esteetilise Meditsiini Keskus Gratsija · KÜ Puškini 20 · 10228595 · 80061866

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — OÜ Esteetilise Meditsiini Keskus Gratsija; defendant — KÜ Puškini 20; claimant’s representative XX — management board member; association’s representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

A company that was a member of the association challenged an amendment to the articles and a management plan establishing different maintenance rates for individuals and legal entities.

The dispute and the court’s decision

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.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the claim. Set aside the part of the decision under agenda item 4 amending clause 4.2e of the articles that allowed different allocation rules for the two groups, and the part of the decision under agenda item 3 providing for a special calculation of management costs in the 2010 plan. The association is to bear the claimant’s costs and its own costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Grant the claim. […] 2. Set aside the general meeting decision of korteriühistu Puškini 20 of 01 April (the decision adopted under agenda item 4) insofar as it amended the wording of clause 4.2e of the association’s articles, […] between two groups of owners (individuals and legal entities).
First instance
Case 2-08-53183Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 10 korteriühistu · 80038614

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesWater and sewerageCalculation of water chargesHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesRepairs and shared propertyRoof and atticOrganisation and funding of repairs

Latest prepared act · · № 2-08-53183/57

How it started · editorial summary

On rehearing, the company’s management-charge debt was proved.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 1 · Unprepared stages: 1
· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-08-53183/57Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Management charges of a non-residential owner

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Puškini 10 · OÜ Analan Auto · 80038614 · 10339202

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant on rehearing — KÜ Puškini 10; defendant and non-residential owner — OÜ Analan Auto; claimant representative XX; claimant adviser XX; defendant representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

On rehearing, the company’s management-charge debt was proved.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Puškini 10 (now — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 10 korteriühistu). KÜ Puškini 10 claimed management and utility charges from OÜ Analan Auto. On 14 May 2010 Tartu Ringkonnakohus overturned the initial refusal of 18 December 2009 and remitted the case to establish the amount of costs. On rehearing, the court examined the charter, tariff and roof-repair decisions, corrected bills and a consolidated calculation. The company disputed the basis of charges and treated its payments as water payments. The court affirmed the non-residential owner’s common-cost obligations, found the claim proved and found the alleged water payments unsupported by the required evidence. The claim was allowed for 3,114.73* euros. The new reasoning states that no late-payment interest was claimed. Costs were imposed on the company without fixing their amount separately.

Outcome of this decision

3,114.73* euros awarded; company bears costs, whose amount was not separately fixed.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Leave court costs with the defendant.
First instance
Not prepared yet

· Case 2-08-53183 · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Case 2-08-63694Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 2a korteriühistu · 80245744

Repairs and shared propertyFaçade, windows and balconiesOrganisation and funding of repairsApartment association bills, payments and debtsBills and justification of chargesDebt claimsApartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeBudget, management plan and ratesLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

How it started · editorial summary

An incorrect allocation method did not invalidate the entire repair decision.

· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-08-63694/26Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Repair contributions and allocation by area

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Korteriühistu Narva Sõbralik · 80245744

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and appellant — Korteriühistu Narva Sõbralik; defendant and respondent on appeal — XX; claimant representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

An incorrect allocation method did not invalidate the entire repair decision.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Korteriühistu Narva Sõbralik (now — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 2a korteriühistu). Korteriühistu Narva Sõbralik claimed earmarked facade and balcony repair contributions and late-payment interest from XX. The defendant disputed equal per-apartment contributions and the decision-making procedure. The county court refused the claim. The circuit court agreed that allocation contravened law and the charter but held only that part void, meaning legally ineffective: area-based allocation replaces it, while the decision to collect funds survives. Discussion of the management plan covered repairs and funding; defective notice was not established. Work and expenditure were proved. The share-based calculation exceeded the claim, so only the amount claimed was allowed and the refusal overturned. XX bears costs in both instances. A 2010 meeting decision provided an additional basis. The judgment does not endorse the original equal allocation or establish later payment.

Outcome of this decision

Refusal overturned and claim allowed within its limits; XX bears costs in both instances.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Allow the appeal.
Appeal
Case 2-10-22500Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu · 80189721

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsBills and justification of chargesApartment association meetings and decisionsDocuments and informationInspection and copies of documents

How it started · editorial summary

After being required to remedy deficiencies in the claim, claimant XX submitted a new text, but the specific decisions challenged and the separate claims remained unclear.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-10-22500/5Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Puškini tn. 12: unspecified claims to set aside decisions and obtain documents not accepted for proceedings

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Puškini tn. 12 korteriühistu · 80189721

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant XX — person who filed the claim; defendant — Puškini tn. 12 korteriühistu; defendant’s representative XX — management board member

How it started · editorial summary

After being required to remedy deficiencies in the claim, claimant XX submitted a new text, but the specific decisions challenged and the separate claims remained unclear.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Claimant XX brought a claim against the apartment association Puškini tn. 12 challenging decisions and charges for maintenance, rent, advertising and waste collection. The claimant also asked the court to obtain documents so that further claims could then be formulated. The court required the deficiencies in the claim to be remedied by clarifying its subject matter, grounds and evidence. A revised claim was submitted, but it did not identify the specific decisions, meeting dates or circumstances showing an infringement of rights. The court noted that several claims could be joined, but each had to be expressed clearly. A request for documents has a separate subject matter and does not replace the need to formulate claims seeking to set aside decisions. By its order of 9 July 2010, the court refused to accept the application for proceedings because the deficiencies had not been remedied. Costs were left to claimant XX; the documents were to be returned after the order entered into force. The court explained that a returned application is regarded as never having been filed or pending before the court. This act did not resolve the disputed charges or the validity of the general meeting’s decisions. The procedural refusal does not establish a debt or mean that the unspecified claims were examined and dismissed on their merits.

Outcome of this decision

Refuse to accept the claim for proceedings against the apartment association Puškini tn. 12, send the order to claimant XX and leave the costs to the claimant. Return the claim and its attachments after the order enters into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Refuse to accept claimant XX’s statement of claim […] for proceedings. […] 3. Claimant XX shall bear the procedural costs in civil case No 2-10-22500. […] 4. Once the ruling enters into force, return the claim and its attachments to claimant XX.
First instance