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 2-18-7037Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 12 korteriühistu · 80170609

Apartment association meetings and decisions

How it started · editorial summary

The association accepted member XX’s request for a finding of nullity of the meeting decision. The court approved an agreement providing 675 euros in costs to the applicant.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-18-7037/6Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Daumani 12: association acknowledged nullity of a meeting decision, court approved the agreement

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Korteriühistu Daumani 12 · 80170609

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant XX — association member; interested person — Korteriühistu Daumani 12; parties’ representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association accepted member XX’s request for a finding of nullity of the meeting decision. The court approved an agreement providing 675 euros in costs to the applicant.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court approved an agreement between association member XX and Korteriühistu Daumani 12 and ended the case challenging the meeting decision of 1 February 2018. The association accepted the request for a finding of nullity, meaning that the decision had no legal effect from adoption. The parties said that after negotiations they considered further proceedings unnecessary. The ruling does not disclose the original breaches in adopting the decision or the association’s objections. The approved outcome rests on agreed terms rather than a separate detailed examination of those breaches. The association undertook to reimburse the applicant 675 euros in costs within ten days after the ruling entered into force. The court checked the participants’ authority to settle and the admissibility and enforceability of the terms, and confirmed the agreed costs allocation. The parties agreed to shorten the appeal period against the ruling to three days. The act does not confirm actual payment of costs.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement: the association accepts the request concerning nullity of the decision of 01.02.2018 and pays applicant XX 675 euros in costs within ten days after the ruling enters into force. Terminate the case; allocate costs under the agreement.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Terminate the proceedings in civil case No 2-18-7037.
First instance
Case 2-14-62722Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 42 korteriühistu · 80054903

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

Latest prepared act · · № 2-14-62722/89

How it started · editorial summary

The association and XX ended two opposing claims by agreement. Settlement of their mutual demands was made conditional on payment.

Related prepared acts from this case are also shown.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 2 · Unprepared stages: 1
· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-62722/89Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 42: mutual maintenance and heating dispute ended by a 5 000-euro agreement

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 42 korteriühistu · 80054903

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: apartment association – claimant in the debt claim and defendant in the other claim; XX – debt defendant and claimant in the charges dispute; parties’ representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association and XX ended two opposing claims by agreement. Settlement of their mutual demands was made conditional on payment.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court approved the agreement between Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 42 korteriühistu and XX to end two opposing claims concerning maintenance and heating. XX undertook to pay the association the agreed amount within three months after the agreement enters into force. The case involved the association’s debt claim and XX’s claim against it concerning charges. The ruling gives no detailed calculations or objections. After payment, the parties regard mutual demands for the agreed period as resolved: both unpaid invoices and possible recalculations in XX’s favour. The court checked the agreement’s permissibility and enforceability and terminated proceedings. It did not separately establish the correctness of every previous charge. The hearing was cancelled and each party bears its own costs; partial court fee refunds will be decided by separate rulings. This ruling establishes neither performance of the agreement nor refund of the fees.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement for XX to pay the association the agreed amount within three months after the agreement enters into force. After payment, mutual demands for the agreed period are settled. Terminate proceedings and cancel the hearing; each bears its own costs. Court fee refunds are decided separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Terminate proceedings in civil case No. 2-14-62722.
First instance
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-14-62722/55Read act

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 42: heating charges, rates and clarification of claims

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ Tallinna mnt 42 · 80054903

Entry into force has not been reverified

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

How it started · editorial summary

A majority resolution does not replace all owners’ agreement on a different allocation of expenses.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Tallinna mnt 42 (now — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 42 korteriühistu). Owner XX disputed maintenance and heating charges with KÜ Tallinna mnt 42. The association relied on meeting resolutions imposing an additional charge for each individual room with altered heating equal to 50% of the apartment’s total heating cost and setting the area used for charging. The owner sought recalculation or a declaration that no debt existed. The first-instance court dismissed the claim, relying in part on unchallenged meeting resolutions. The appellate court reversed and remitted. After repeated amendments, it remained unclear which claims the first-instance court had decided. The court should have discussed the available legal protection and explained that compulsory recalculation as formulated had no independent substantive basis; a declaration of no debt was possible. Allocating common expenses otherwise than in proportion to ownership shares requires all owners’ consent. A meeting resolution without unanimity does not replace that agreement; failure to challenge it in time did not resolve this issue. Evidence and the existence of debt must be examined on rehearing. The appeal was allowed in part, with costs to be allocated by the first-instance court according to the final outcome.

Outcome of this decision

The judgment was reversed and the case remitted to clarify the claims and examine the debt; no specific recalculation was ordered.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Allow the appeal in part.
Appeal
Not prepared yet

· Case 2-14-62722 · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Case 2-17-1555Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu · 80183301

Parking and groundsConstruction of parking facilitiesUse of shared landBarriers, permits and accessApartment association meetings and decisionsVoting and representationConvening meetings and advance noticeAgenda and minutes

Latest prepared act · · № 2-17-1555/38

How it started · editorial summary

Owner XX did not obtain a declaration that the December parking decision was void. The appeal court did not examine the new dispute over the April decision on its merits.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 1 · Unprepared stages: 1
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-17-1555/38Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Kerese 6: parking decision not declared void; new demand on appeal left unexamined

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu · 80183301

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and appellant XX – owner; defendant – apartment association; parties’ representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

Owner XX did not obtain a declaration that the December parking decision was void. The appeal court did not examine the new dispute over the April decision on its merits.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The circuit court upheld the refusal to declare the apartment association Kerese 6 parking decision of 20 December 2016 void. It left the demand concerning a separate decision of 13 April 2016 unexamined because no such demand had been made at first instance. Owner XX challenged approval of the parking project, tree felling and pruning, and installation of road signs. He argued that creating parking on a green area required all owners’ consent, whereas decisions were made by majority. The association objected that parking had already been approved and the December decisions merely organised the works. The appeal court disagreed with that explanation: the April decision was too indefinite to count as a construction decision. It was the December project that specified the future parking area and tree works. This did not, however, justify granting the demand made. The owner sought a declaration of nullity, meaning no legal effect from adoption, rather than an alternative order invalidating an unlawful decision. The court considered that an alleged breach of co-owner consent rules did not itself cause nullity. The materials also did not establish a change in the plot’s intended use substantial enough to require the provision cited by the claimant. The court found no other grounds for nullity, including a proven breach of convening requirements. The court did not allow a separate challenge to the April decision to be added on appeal. Appeal costs were imposed on the claimant; the first-instance court will quantify them separately. The court applied the rules in force when the meeting decisions were adopted in 2016; its findings concern the demand made and those materials.

Outcome of this decision

Uphold the first-instance judgment of 30.08.2017. Leave the appeal concerning nullity of the meeting decision of 13.04.2016 unexamined and dismiss the rest. Claimant XX bears appeal costs, to be quantified separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Dismiss XX’s appeal in all other respects.
Appeal
Not prepared yet

· Case 2-17-1555 · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Case 2-18-4960Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 12 korteriühistu · 80170609

Apartment association meetings and decisionsQuorum and repeat meetings

How it started · editorial summary

The fee was paid, but details of all necessary participants and other defects in the application were not corrected.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-18-4960/4Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Daumani 12: application to set aside a meeting decision refused admission because defects remained

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KORTERIÜHISTU DAUMANI 12 · 80170609

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — XX; Interested person — KORTERIÜHISTU DAUMANI 12

How it started · editorial summary

The fee was paid, but details of all necessary participants and other defects in the application were not corrected.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court refused to admit XX’s application to set aside KORTERIÜHISTU DAUMANI 12’s general meeting decision of 1 February 2018. Assistance with court fees and temporary suspension of the meeting decision were also refused. The act did not examine the decision’s validity on the merits. XX alleged that the meeting lacked the required composition for decision-making. Its decisions included resuming court proceedings against XX. XX asked for the decision to be set aside, suspended pending the dispute, and for exemption from the fee. The ruling does not describe objections from the association. The court had earlier required defects in the claim to be remedied and explained that this question must be addressed by application in special non-contentious proceedings. The documents did not identify all affected persons. The court required a proper application and payment of 50 euros, or clarification of the assistance request. On 16 April, XX provided proof of paying 50 euros but did not remedy the other defects. The court therefore found that the application did not allow consideration with all necessary persons and refused admission. The interim protection request also remained unclarified and its separate 50 euro fee unpaid. The court refused it too. Fee assistance was not granted because, after refusal to admit the main application, no procedural action requiring a fee remained. The applicant’s own costs were left to the applicant; no sums were reimbursable to other participants. The court explained the right to request refund of the fee separately, but did not order repayment in the operative part.

Outcome of this decision

Refuse to admit the application to set aside the meeting decision. Refuse procedural assistance and interim protection. The applicant bears costs; no sums are reimbursable to other participants.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
4. Leave procedural costs to the applicant. There are no reimbursable procedural costs.
First instance
Case 2-16-14583Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 42 korteriühistu · 80054903

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeQuorum and repeat meetingsAgenda and minutesArticles of association and amendments

Latest prepared act · · № 2-16-14583/34

How it started · editorial summary

The repeat meeting was found competent to decide under the association’s articles. The appeal court rejected both claimants’ requests to set aside the decisions or establish their nullity.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 1 · Unprepared stages: 1
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-16-14583/34Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 42: appeal court rejected both claimants’ challenges to a repeat meeting

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Korteriühistu Tallinna mnt 42 · 80054903

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: two claimants XX — association members; one claimant XX — appellant; defendant and appellant — apartment association; parties’ representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

The repeat meeting was found competent to decide under the association’s articles. The appeal court rejected both claimants’ requests to set aside the decisions or establish their nullity.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The circuit court allowed the apartment association Tallinna mnt 42’s appeal and dismissed the appeal of one of the two claimants XX. As a result, both claimants’ challenges to the meeting decisions of 4 August 2016 were rejected and costs at both instances allocated to them. The claimants considered that the meeting lacked enough participants to decide. After the meeting of 21 July failed for lack of a quorum, a new one was convened. They argued that the invitation did not identify it as a repeat meeting, so more than half of all members had to attend. The association replied that both meetings had the same agenda and its articles allowed a repeat meeting to decide regardless of attendance. The first instance granted one participant’s claim but dismissed the other’s because that person was present when the decisions were adopted and did not request that objections be recorded in the minutes. The circuit court confirmed the latter ground for a request to set a decision aside. It also explained that this participant could invoke nullity, meaning no legal effect from adoption, even without recorded objections. The court nevertheless found no grounds for nullity. The articles’ repeat meeting rule complied with the law applied. The meeting of 4 August was recognised as a repeat meeting because it followed a meeting with the same agenda lacking a quorum. Even omission of the word “repeat” from the notice did not itself make it a first meeting. The alleged convening breaches were not established. The court also noted defects in the original judgment’s wording: all items, including purely organisational ones, cannot be set aside without clarification. The county court will determine the amount of costs after the appeal judgment enters into force.

Outcome of this decision

Set aside the grant of one claimant’s claim and the earlier costs allocation. In the new complete operative part, dismiss both claimants XX’s claims. Allow the association’s appeal and dismiss the other claimant’s appeal. Allocate costs at both instances to the claimants, with the amount determined separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
5. Allow Korteriühistu Tallinna mnt 42’s appeal.
Appeal
Not prepared yet

· Case 2-16-14583 · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Case 2-15-18123Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 19 korteriühistu · 80021192

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeArticles of association and amendmentsBudget, management plan and ratesApartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the boardParking and groundsConstruction of parking facilities

How it started · editorial summary

The court approved the agreement between Narva linn and the association on nullity of the listed meeting decisions and reimbursement of costs; proceedings were terminated.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-18123/43Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kangelaste 19: court approved city and association’s agreement on nullity of meeting decisions

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn · Narva Linnaelamu · Kangelaste pr 19 korteriühistu · · 11129843 · 80021192

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — Narva linn through Narva Linnaelamu; defendant — apartment association; parties’ representatives XX; former management board chair XX

How it started · editorial summary

The court approved the agreement between Narva linn and the association on nullity of the listed meeting decisions and reimbursement of costs; proceedings were terminated.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court approved an agreement between Narva linn, acting through Narva Linnaelamu, and the apartment association Kangelaste pr 19 and terminated the case. The city challenged the association’s general meeting decision of 20 June 2015, seeking a finding of nullity, meaning absence of legal effect, or alternatively to have it set aside. Under the agreement, the association accepted that the meeting decisions of 11 February 2016 electing a board, choosing an audit firm, confirming the meeting decision of 20 June 2015 and amending the articles were void because the convening procedure had been breached. The agreement also lists related decisions on reporting, the management plan, board activities and membership, moving a playground and building a parking area, which the parties acknowledged as void. The court checked that the agreement did not conflict with the law, good morals or the public interest. The association undertook to reimburse the city a 150 euro fee and 1100 euros in legal assistance costs. The court additionally ordered a refund to the city of 150 euros of the fee paid, payable after the ruling enters into force. The parties waived appeals. If the agreement is not performed, the creditor may apply to a bailiff; the act contains no information on actual performance.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement on nullity of the listed general meeting decisions and terminate proceedings. The association undertakes to reimburse the city a 150 euro fee and 1 100 euros in legal costs. The court ordered a further 150 euros in fees refunded to the city from the budget after entry into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Terminate the proceedings in the case.
First instance
Case 2-17-7218Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 19 korteriühistu · 80021192

Apartment association meetings and decisionsArticles of association and amendmentsApartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the board

How it started · editorial summary

The default judgment declared the general meeting decision of 28 April 2017 void on the matters specified by the court.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-7218/11Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kangelaste pr 19: default judgment declared the board election and articles amendment decision void

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Kangelaste pr 19 · 80021192

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – XX; Defendant – KÜ Kangelaste pr 19

How it started · editorial summary

The default judgment declared the general meeting decision of 28 April 2017 void on the matters specified by the court.

The dispute and the court’s decision

XX brought a claim against KÜ Kangelaste pr 19 seeking a declaration that a general meeting decision was void. The court granted the claim by default: it declared void the decision of 28 April 2017 electing three board members and approving a new version of clauses 6.4 and 6.5 of the articles of association. Nullity means that the decision has no legal effect from adoption. The judgment contains an operative part and explanations of procedure, but no account of the dispute’s circumstances or reasons. The available text therefore does not establish specific irregularities in convening the meeting or voting. The association must pay XX 500 euros in costs: a 300-euro court fee and 200 euros for legal assistance. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security; actual performance is not confirmed.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the claim by default. Declare void the meeting decision of 28 April 2017 electing three board members and approving new versions of clauses 6.4 and 6.5 of the articles. Award 500 euros in costs against the association. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security.
First instance
Case 2-16-19439Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 42 korteriühistu · 80054903

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayBills and justification of chargesApartment association meetings and decisions

Latest prepared act · · № 2-16-19439/11

How it started · editorial summary

Refusal to accept the counterclaim was upheld, but lack of prospects was replaced as the reason by the existence of an identical dispute already pending.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 1 · Unprepared stages: 1
· RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-16-19439/11Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 42: counterclaim refused because another case between the same parties was already pending

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ Tallinna mnt 42 · 80054903

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Original claimant and counterclaim defendant – KÜ Tallinna mnt 42; Original defendant, counterclaimant and appellant – XX

How it started · editorial summary

Refusal to accept the counterclaim was upheld, but lack of prospects was replaced as the reason by the existence of an identical dispute already pending.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Tallinna mnt 42 claimed debt and late-payment interest from XX. XX filed a counterclaim seeking a declaration that general meeting decisions were void, meaning without legal effect from adoption. XX linked the charges to what he considered an unjustified increase in the apartment’s floor area in the calculations. The county court refused to accept the counterclaim as having no prospect of success: no specific challenged decisions had been identified. The circuit court upheld the refusal but substituted its basis. Case 2-14-62722 concerning recalculation and absence of debt was already pending between the same parties. The court found that the counterclaim substantially coincided with the subject matter and objective of that dispute. Refusal concerned resubmission of an already pending demand, rather than a finding that XX lacked a right to legal protection. The court referred to its judgment of 8 June 2017 in the other case, which set aside the county court judgment of 3 October 2016 and remitted the case for reconsideration. The present ruling states that shared-property expenses are allocated in proportion to the owner’s share; a departure requires agreement by all owners. Calculation issues can be addressed when the related demands are heard. The circuit court suggested considering joinder of the two cases but did not join them by this ruling. The association’s monetary demand was not decided on its merits. Requests to restore the deadline for challenging the meeting decisions and to gather evidence were left undetermined, as the court did not consider those decisions’ validity decisive for this dispute. Appeal costs were imposed on XX without a specified amount.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss XX’s appeal; uphold the operative part of the ruling of 17 May 2017 with amended reasons. XX bears appeal costs. Neither the association’s monetary claim nor the validity of the meeting decisions was decided on its merits by this ruling.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Dismiss XX’s appeal against the ruling.
Appeal
Not prepared yet

· Case 2-16-19439 · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Case 2-16-123Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 19 korteriühistu · 80021192

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeApartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the boardAuthority and representationQuorum and repeat meetings

Latest prepared act · · № 2-16-123/49

How it started · editorial summary

The court deemed the convening demand received once there was a reasonable opportunity to read it; the board missed the deadline in the articles and the members’ meeting was permissible.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 2
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-16-123/49Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Kangelaste pr 19: meeting decision upheld and challenge dismissed

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ Kangelaste pr 19 · 80021192

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and appellant – XX; Defendant – KÜ Kangelaste pr 19

How it started · editorial summary

The court deemed the convening demand received once there was a reasonable opportunity to read it; the board missed the deadline in the articles and the members’ meeting was permissible.

The dispute and the court’s decision

XX challenged the apartment association Kangelaste pr 19’s general meeting decision of 21 December 2015, which expressed no confidence in the former board and elected a new board and audit committee. The claimant argued that members had no right to convene the meeting themselves because the board had already held a meeting on 8 December. The court dismissed the claim and the appeal was dismissed. The key issue was when the members’ demand to convene a meeting was received. The court found that it was placed in board member XX’s mailbox on 15 November 2015, giving a reasonable opportunity to read it. Receipt of a legally significant communication did not require proof that it was actually read. The two-week period under the articles therefore expired on 29 November, and the 8 December meeting was late. The members acquired the right to convene a meeting on 9 December and a repeat meeting on 21 December. No audit committee had previously been elected. If the claimant asserted otherwise, it was for the claimant to prove this; the court did not have to gather such information on its own initiative. The court found no grounds for treating the decision as contrary to good morals or void for other reasons, meaning without legal effect from adoption. The objection to the new board member’s authority was rejected: the member had been elected at the challenged meeting, and the board’s register entry does not itself create that authority. Following examination, the meeting decision was found valid. The first-instance costs award of 770 euros was upheld; a further 280 euros for the appeal was awarded to the association against XX.

Outcome of this decision

Leave the judgment of 27 July 2016 unchanged and dismiss the appeal. XX bears appeal costs; the association is awarded 280 euros. The meeting decision of 21 December 2015 was not set aside.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Dismiss the appeal.
Appeal
· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-123/38Read act

Separate act page

Members convening a meeting after the board missed its deadline

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Kangelaste pr 19 korteriühistu · 80021192

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: XX — claimant and former board member; Association — defendant

How it started · editorial summary

The members’ right to convene the meeting depended on receipt of their request and expiry of the board’s deadline under the articles.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Kangelaste pr 19 korteriühistu (now — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 19 korteriühistu). XX sought to invalidate the decisions of the repeat general meeting of Kangelaste pr 19 korteriühistu on 21 December 2015 concerning replacement of the board and election of the audit committee. The court accepted delivery of the request through the mailbox because the recipient had a reasonable opportunity to read it. The board failed to convene the meeting within the two weeks set by the articles. The members could therefore convene it themselves and hold a repeat meeting after a lack of quorum.

Outcome of this decision

The claim was dismissed. The court found no defect in convening the meeting that would render its decisions void. XX bears the costs and was ordered to reimburse the association 770 euros.

A checked extract in this language is not yet available.

First instance
Case 2-13-8500Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 4 korteriühistu · 80145451

Apartment association meetings and decisions

Latest prepared act · · № 2-13-8500/88

How it started · editorial summary

The costs appeal was partly allowed: 150 euros was excluded and 535 euros remained reimbursable to the association.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 1 · Unprepared stages: 2
· RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-13-8500/88Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Kangelaste 4: reimbursement of court costs reduced from 685 to 535 euros

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Korteriühistu Kangelaste 4 · 80145451

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant in the main case and appellant — XX; Defendant in the main case and recipient of costs — Korteriühistu Kangelaste 4

How it started · editorial summary

The costs appeal was partly allowed: 150 euros was excluded and 535 euros remained reimbursable to the association.

The dispute and the court’s decision

XX challenged the amount of costs awarded to the apartment association Kangelaste 4 after losing a dispute over particular clauses of a general meeting decision. The county court had determined costs at 685 euros; the circuit court reduced them to 535 euros and partly allowed the appeal. The dispute over the meeting decision itself was not reconsidered in this ruling. The appellant asked to retain only 220 euros. The appellant disputed the contractual representative’s involvement in preparing the defence, double counting of its preparation and drafting, working time, rates and costs of reviewing the cassation appeal. The association agreed to exclude the cost of the original defence but defended the remaining costs. The court excluded 150 euros for preparing and drafting the response of 2 May 2013: the document did not show that a contractual representative had drafted it, it was signed by the association’s statutory representative, and the association itself agreed to exclude that cost. The court retained the remaining 535 euros. Reviewing the cassation appeal and the Riigikohus decision was part of preparing the document submitted to the circuit court on 7 August 2015, rather than separate payment for a non-existent response to cassation. The work volume, time and rates were found justified given the complexity and duration of the case. The court noted that reasonableness need not be assessed minute by minute for every service, but the overall amount must suit the case. Costs incurred in appealing a costs determination ruling are not reimbursable. The award of 535 euros replaces the earlier 685 euros; actual payment is not confirmed.

Outcome of this decision

Amend the ruling of 15 April 2016 as to the amount of costs. Award the association 535 euros against XX; uphold the remainder. The appeal was partly allowed.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
4. Partly allow the appeal against the ruling.
Appeal
Not prepared yet

· Case 2-13-8500 · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Not prepared yet

· Case 2-13-8500 · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Case 2-14-9883Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

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

How it started · 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.

Related prepared acts from this case are also shown.

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

How it started · 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.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Allow the appeal in part.
Appeal
· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-9883/28Read act

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

How it started · 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.

A checked extract in this language is not yet available.

First instance
Case 2-15-11354Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 42 korteriühistu · 80054903

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

How it started · 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

How it started · 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.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. Leave procedural costs with the parties themselves.
First instance