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 2-22-9914Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Uusküla tn 1 korteriühistu · 80175825

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

How it started · editorial summary

The association withdrew after voluntary payments. The court ended the case and ordered XX to pay 100 euros in costs.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-9914/15Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Uusküla tn 1: withdrawal of a debt claim

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Uusküla tn 1 korteriühistu · 80175825

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, Uusküla tn 1 korteriühistu; Person concerned, debtor — XX; Association’s representative — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association withdrew after voluntary payments. The court ended the case and ordered XX to pay 100 euros in costs.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court accepted Narva linn, Uusküla tn 1 korteriühistu’s withdrawal of its debt application and ended the proceedings. After the application was filed, debtor XX began making voluntary payments and the association decided not to pursue the principal claim. The association reported voluntary repayment and then withdrew, stating that the debt had been almost entirely paid. It still sought litigation costs and a refund of half the state fee. The person concerned agreed to termination and did not dispute the costs or the obligation to reimburse them. The court accepted the withdrawal and ended the case without separately deciding the original debt claim. Its allocation of costs relied on satisfaction of the claim after filing. The order of 25 August 2023 awarded 100 euros against XX: 75 euros in legal costs and 25 euros in non-refundable state fees. A further 25 euros in state fees was to be refunded to the association from the budget. No interest on litigation costs was awarded because the association had not requested it. The order did not separately establish a specific balance of the original debt.

Outcome of this decision

Accept the association’s withdrawal and end the proceedings. Order XX to bear the costs, pay 100 euros to the association and bear XX’s own costs. Refund 25 euros in state fees to the association.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. End the proceedings in civil case no. 2-22-9914.
First instance
Case 2-23-6125Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Vahtra tn 4 korteriühistu · 80175765

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

How it started · editorial summary

After a report of payment, the association waived its demand. The court accepted the waiver, terminated the case and ordered a 150 euro fee refund to the association.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-23-6125/6Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Vahtra tn 4: debt case terminated after association waived its demand, partial fee refund ordered

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Vahtra tn 4 korteriühistu · 80175765

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, Vahtra tn 4 korteriühistu; interested person XX; association’s representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

After a report of payment, the association waived its demand. The court accepted the waiver, terminated the case and ordered a 150 euro fee refund to the association.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court terminated the case on the apartment association Narva linn, Vahtra tn 4’s application after it waived the demand. Interested person XX reported payment of the debt, and both participants signed the application to end the case. The association also sought refund of the excess fee paid and half the proper application fee. The participants agreed not to seek costs from each other. The ruling does not give the initial debt amount or detailed objections to charges. The court checked and accepted the waiver and ended proceedings without deciding the original demand. Each participant was left to bear their own costs; no inter-party reimbursement was awarded. The association paid a 175 euro fee on applying, whereas the required fee was 50 euros. The ruling of 15 May 2023 ordered refund of a 125 euro overpayment and 25 euros due to the waiver, totalling 150 euros. A budget refund must be distinguished from recovery against the interested person. Actual refund is not confirmed.

Outcome of this decision

Accept the association’s waiver and terminate proceedings. Leave costs to participants, with no mutual reimbursement. Refund the association a 150 euro fee.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. The parties shall bear their own procedural costs. There are no reimbursable procedural costs.
First instance
Case 2-23-110738Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Hariduse tn 26 korteriühistu · 80218606

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

How it started · editorial summary

The settlement distinguishes ordinary interest from consequences of breaching instalments.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-23-110738/3Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Instalments and different interest conditions

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Hariduse tn 26 korteriühistu · 80218606

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, Hariduse tn 26 korteriühistu; debtor XX — party to the settlement

How it started · editorial summary

The settlement distinguishes ordinary interest from consequences of breaching instalments.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court approved an instalment settlement between Narva linn, Hariduse tn 26 korteriühistu and XX for acknowledged management charges and other payments and terminated proceedings. The settlement includes reimbursement of 32.50 euros of the association’s state fee, equal monthly instalments and a separate final payment. The order gives no detailed objections to the charges. Interest of 0.02% per day on unpaid management charges and other payments applies from 1 November 2023. Breach of the schedule makes the whole obligation immediately payable, with interest of 0.02% per day on the entire obligation from 1 April 2023. These are different conditions; the court did not establish a breach. Other costs remain with each participant. A state-budget refund of 32.50 euros in payment-order fees was refused; this does not cancel the debtor’s agreed reimbursement of that portion. Subsequent performance is not established.

Outcome of this decision

Settlement approved and proceedings terminated. The separate interest conditions remain; the state-fee refund was refused.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Terminate proceedings in civil case no. 2-23-110738.
First instance
Case 2-22-138703Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Rahu tn 28a korteriühistu · 80158560

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

How it started · editorial summary

Two persons acknowledged a common joint and several obligation. The court approved the agreement, but performance of the schedule with already elapsed deadlines is not confirmed.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-138703/7Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Rahu tn 28a: court approved two debtors’ agreement with the association

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Rahu tn 28a korteriühistu · 80158560

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, Rahu tn 28a korteriühistu; interested person XX — party to the agreement; other interested person XX — party to the agreement; association’s representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

Two persons acknowledged a common joint and several obligation. The court approved the agreement, but performance of the schedule with already elapsed deadlines is not confirmed.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court approved Narva linn, Rahu tn 28a korteriühistu’s agreement with two interested persons XX and terminated the case. The participants acknowledged a common obligation for building maintenance, other payments and court costs; the act does not set out detailed objections to charges. The two persons are jointly and severally liable: the common unpaid amount may be sought from either, but cannot be recovered in full twice. The schedule provides three equal payments with deadlines before the ruling. The document does not say whether they had been made by approval. Breach makes the obligation immediately enforceable and requires payment of earlier interest specified in the agreement and further interest of 0,02% per day on unpaid maintenance expenses and other payments. The court did not find that these conditions had occurred. Each party bears other costs; the association was awarded a 32,50 euro fee refund. The act states that the parties waived appeals. Approval does not confirm schedule performance or the current balance.

Outcome of this decision

Admit the application, approve the agreement on two persons’ joint and several obligation and three equal payments, and terminate the case. Breach provides for immediate performance, earlier interest and further interest of 0,02% per day on unpaid maintenance expenses and other payments. Leave other costs to participants; refund the association a 32,50 euro fee.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. Terminate proceedings in civil case No 2-22-138703.
First instance
Case 2-22-126130Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Viru tn 19 korteriühistu · 80522114

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

How it started · editorial summary

The instalment settlement provides a conditional interest concession.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-126130/5Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Instalments and conditional suspension of interest

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Viru tn 19 korteriühistu · 80522114

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, Viru tn 19 korteriühistu; debtor XX — party to the settlement; applicant’s contractual representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

The instalment settlement provides a conditional interest concession.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court approved a settlement between Narva linn, Viru tn 19 korteriühistu and XX for instalment payment of acknowledged management-charge debt, interest and costs, and terminated proceedings. Equal monthly instalments and a separate final payment were agreed; current bills remain payable separately on time. The order gives no detailed objections to the calculation. Proper compliance with the schedule suspends interest on the principal from 22 September 2022. Breach removes the concession and interest resumes from that same date. The court did not establish subsequent breach or performance. Agreed costs of 132.50 euros comprise 32.50 euros in state fees and 100 euros in legal costs. Other costs remain with each participant; a separate state-fee refund of 32.50 euros to the association was ordered. Reduction of the appeal period to three days was refused as unavailable in this procedure.

Outcome of this decision

Instalments approved and proceedings terminated; suspension of interest depends on compliance. Appeal period not reduced.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Terminate proceedings in civil case no. 2-22-126130.
First instance
Case 2-22-134627Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Rahu tn 14 korteriühistu · 80015323

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

How it started · editorial summary

The court approved monthly instalments for an acknowledged obligation while preserving the possibility of appeal.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-134627/3Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Rahu tn 14: debt instalments approved until January 2026

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Rahu tn 14 korteriühistu · 80015323

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, Rahu tn 14 korteriühistu; debtor XX — party to the agreement; association’s representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

The court approved monthly instalments for an acknowledged obligation while preserving the possibility of appeal.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court approved Narva linn, Rahu tn 14 korteriühistu’s agreement with XX to pay the acknowledged obligation in instalments and terminated the case. It did not grant the request to exclude appeals. After the agreement was submitted, the case was transferred from payment order proceedings to Viru Maakohus for approval. The acknowledged obligation includes building maintenance, other payments, interest and court costs; the act contains no separate examination of objections to charges. The schedule provides equal monthly payments and a separate last payment. Unpaid maintenance costs and other payments carry interest of 0,02% per day. Breach of the schedule makes the entire agreed obligation immediately payable; the court did not establish that a breach had actually occurred. Each party bears other costs; the request for a partial fee refund is decided separately after entry into force. The court considered waiver of appeal impermissible under the procedure applied. Performance of the schedule and the later balance are not confirmed.

Outcome of this decision

Approve monthly instalments with a separate final payment and terminate the case. Provide interest of 0,02% per day on unpaid maintenance costs and other payments, with immediate full payment on breach of schedule. Leave other costs to participants and decide the fee refund separately. Refuse to exclude appeals.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Terminate proceedings in civil case No 2-22-134627.
First instance
Case 2-22-15067Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, […] korteriühistu

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

How it started · editorial summary

A bailiff sought permission to enter without XX’s consent to photograph property while enforcing a debt. The court allowed one visit within a limited period and with advance notice.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-15067/4Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Permission for a bailiff to enter and photograph property

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, […] korteriühistu ·

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — bailiff XX; Debtor — XX; Creditor — Narva linn, […] korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

A bailiff sought permission to enter without XX’s consent to photograph property while enforcing a debt. The court allowed one visit within a limited period and with advance notice.

The dispute and the court’s decision

A bailiff sought permission to enter premises held by XX without consent to take photographs while enforcing a judgment debt owed to an association. The request followed refusal to allow photography needed for valuation and sale. The court considered photography necessary and proportionate for enforcement. It permitted one entry and use of the photographs in auction notices. Up to two witnesses and a police officer may accompany the bailiff; force may be used to enter if entry is obstructed. Permission lasts 60 days from the order, with at least 4 days’ notice to the debtor. The order is enforceable immediately upon notification to the applicant, irrespective of finality. Each participant bears their own costs. The act does not establish that entry, photography, sale or repayment actually occurred.

Outcome of this decision

Permission was granted for one entry without XX’s consent and use of photographs in an auction notice subject to the order’s conditions. Permission lasts 60 days and requires at least 4 days’ notice. Actual execution is not established.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Leave each participant to bear their own procedural costs. There are no procedural costs to be reimbursed to participants.
First instance
Case 2-21-141342Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Soldina tn 10 korteriühistu · 80170667

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

How it started · editorial summary

The association and two debtors agreed on instalments and payment of current invoices. The court approved the settlement and closed the case without establishing actual compliance with the schedule.

· Court orderViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-21-141342/4Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Approval of an instalment agreement for debt owed to an association

Court order · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, A-A. Tiimanni tn 10 korteriühistu · 80170667

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, A-A. Tiimanni tn 10 korteriühistu; Debtor I — XX; Debtor II — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association and two debtors agreed on instalments and payment of current invoices. The court approved the settlement and closed the case without establishing actual compliance with the schedule.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, A-A. Tiimanni tn 10 korteriühistu (now — Narva linn, Soldina tn 10 korteriühistu) sought payment from two individuals identified as XX. After their objections, the case was transferred from payment-order proceedings to Viru Maakohus. The participants submitted an agreement acknowledging a debt comprising principal, late-payment interest and costs, to be paid in instalments over six months. Current invoices from the February 2022 invoice onward remain payable in addition to instalments on the old debt. For delay, the agreement provides daily late-payment interest of 0.022% on the unpaid principal. The act does not provide for acceleration of the entire debt. The court found no conflict with law or good morals, approved the settlement and discontinued proceedings. Costs were dealt with as agreed, with no further reimbursable costs. The court explained the availability of enforcement if the agreement is breached and the bar on a new action between the same parties about the same subject. Approval of the schedule does not establish that payment has been made.

Outcome of this decision

The instalment settlement was approved and proceedings discontinued. Current invoices remain separately payable and agreed late-payment interest applies to delay. This act does not establish actual compliance with the schedule.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
There are no reimbursable procedural costs not specified in the settlement.
First instance
Case 2-22-115560Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 63a korteriühistu · 80054501

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

How it started · editorial summary

The court approved a schedule already under way: the association reported four timely payments, but the ruling does not confirm full performance.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-115560/7Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 63a: court approved an agreement’s payment schedule already under way

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 63a korteriühistu · 80054501

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant – Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 63a korteriühistu; debtor XX – party to the agreement; association representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

The court approved a schedule already under way: the association reported four timely payments, but the ruling does not confirm full performance.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 63a and XX entered an instalment agreement for arrears. The court approved it after the association reported initial voluntary payments and terminated the case. The payment proposal in payment order proceedings could not be served, but the parties submitted a signed agreement. The association reported that the first four payments were made on time: performance had begun before court approval. The acknowledged obligation includes building maintenance, other payments and litigation costs. It provides equal monthly instalments and a separate final payment, plus interest of 0,02% per day on unpaid management expenses and other payments. Breach of the schedule makes the entire agreed obligation immediately payable. The court considered the agreement permissible and enforceable. Each bears its other costs; a 32,50-euro court fee refund from the state budget was ordered for the association. A request to exclude appeals was rejected as impermissible in the procedure used. Full performance of the schedule and the current balance were not established.

Outcome of this decision

Approve monthly instalments with a separate final payment. The agreement provides for interest of 0,02% per day on unpaid management expenses and other payments and immediate payment of the full obligation on breach. Terminate the case and leave other costs with the participants; refund the association 32,50 euros in court fees. Refuse exclusion of appeals.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Terminate proceedings in civil case No. 2-22-115560.
First instance
Case 2-20-114528Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 7 korteriühistu · 80189247

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

How it started · editorial summary

The court checked documents on expenses and payment allocation and the basis for electronic service, then awarded debt and statutory late-payment interest.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-20-114528/26Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Võidu prospekt 7: court awarded maintenance debt and statutory late-payment interest

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 7 korteriühistu · 80189247

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant – Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 7 korteriühistu; interested person XX – owner; association representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

The court checked documents on expenses and payment allocation and the basis for electronic service, then awarded debt and statutory late-payment interest.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court awarded the apartment association Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 7 principal and statutory late-payment interest against owner XX. The claim was supported not only by invoices but also by meeting decisions, management plans and supplier documents. After the payment order application, the owner emailed an objection. The court accepted it despite the lack of a digital signature because it had no doubt about the sender. The case was transferred for further consideration. The association clarified its demand, seeking maintenance payments for periods before and after 2018. At that stage, the interested person did not respond. The court separately explained service. It used an email address previously confirmed by the participant and already used to communicate with the court. Attempts at other delivery methods were unsuccessful. On that basis, the court deemed the documents served. On the merits, the court noted that invoices alone do not prove the amount owed. The association must show the basis for shared expenses and their allocation among owners. Here it supplied calculations, minutes approving rates and plans, floor-area data, contracts and service invoices. The court found the principal proved. As charges covered periods before and after 2018, the court applied the relevant legislation for both periods. Use of the ruling in a new dispute requires attention to later legislative changes and the circumstances of that case. The ruling of 13 September 2022 awarded principal and statutory interest on it until performance. Costs were imposed on the interested person, for separate quantification. The award does not establish today’s unpaid balance.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the association’s application: award principal and statutory late-payment interest on it until performance against XX. XX bears costs, to be quantified separately after finality.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
4. XX shall bear the litigation costs. The court will quantify them within a reasonable time after the decision becomes final.
First instance
Case 2-22-9817Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Linda tn 1 korteriühistu · 80180424

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

How it started · editorial summary

The agreement provides for instalments, separate payment of current bills and a waiver of further late-payment interest.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-9817/8Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Linda tn 1: payment of arrears and current bills

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Linda tn 1 korteriühistu · 80180424

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, Linda tn 1 korteriühistu; Person concerned — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The agreement provides for instalments, separate payment of current bills and a waiver of further late-payment interest.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Linda tn 1 korteriühistu sought management-cost arrears. The court approved its agreement with XX to pay the acknowledged debt and agreed costs by instalments and ended the proceedings. The association waived further late-payment interest. The order does not describe detailed objections to the charges. Monthly payments and a separate final payment were agreed. Current association bills must be paid in addition. A missed instalment allows the whole debt to be enforced. Once the agreement is performed, no mutual claims remain in this case. Agreed costs total 298 euros: 25 euros in state fees, 270 euros in legal costs and 3 euros for obtaining a document. Each participant bears other costs. The association was awarded a refund of 25 euros in state fees from the budget. The agreed appeal period is two days from service. Neither performance nor the refund is established.

Outcome of this decision

Approve payment of the acknowledged debt and agreed costs by instalments and end the proceedings. Current bills are paid separately; delay permits enforcement of the whole debt. The association waives further late-payment interest. Each participant bears other costs; refund 25 euros in state fees to the association.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. End the proceedings in civil case no. 2-22-9817 following the conclusion of a settlement agreement.
First instance
Case 2-21-133973Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 19 korteriühistu · 80444685

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

How it started · editorial summary

The company paid the demand after court action and the association waived its application. The case ended, with costs imposed on the company for later quantification.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-21-133973/8Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

A. Daumani tn 19: association waived demand after company paid; case terminated

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, A. Daumani tn 19 korteriühistu · Piigipuu Ridaelamud OÜ · 80444685 · 14554618

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant – Narva linn, A. Daumani tn 19 korteriühistu; interested person – Piigipuu Ridaelamud OÜ; organisations’ representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

The company paid the demand after court action and the association waived its application. The case ended, with costs imposed on the company for later quantification.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Narva linn, A. Daumani tn 19 waived its debt application against Piigipuu Ridaelamud OÜ after payment of the demand. The court accepted the waiver and terminated proceedings. The ruling gives neither the original debt amount nor detailed objections to charges. Its reasoning shows that the company met the demand after the association went to court. It did not object to the waiver within the time allowed. The court checked that the waiver was lawful and did not infringe protected interests. Applying the rules on waiver of a claim to the application, it ended the case without a separate decision on the initial arrears. This was not a settlement or a new award of the already paid demand. Litigation costs were imposed on Piigipuu Ridaelamud OÜ because it paid only after filing. However, the court did not quantify costs in its ruling of 4 August 2022. Quantification was left to a separate decision after finality. Partial refund of the association’s court fee was also left to a separate ruling. The document therefore confirms allocation of costs and the ground for termination, but awards no specified amount in costs or refund.

Outcome of this decision

Terminate the case on the association’s application against Piigipuu Ridaelamud OÜ. The company bears costs; their monetary amount and the fee refund are to be decided by separate rulings after finality.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Piigipuu Ridaelamud OÜ shall bear the litigation costs.
First instance