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

Apartment association / building

Year of actCourt level

Reset all

Case 2-23-2145Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu · 80183173

Water and seweragePipes, risers and sewerageDamage and insuranceLeaks and floodingCause and proof of damageAmount of compensationInsurance payment and insurer’s claimApartment association bills, payments and debtsLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer obtained an award for reimbursement of compensation paid for apartment damage. The court linked the damage to the condition of a shared water riser under the association’s management.

03.03.2023 · RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-23-2145/3Read actFirst instance03.03.2023

Separate act page

A. Puškini tn 65: association ordered to reimburse insurer for a shared riser leak

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu · AB Lietuvos draudimas · 80183173 · 110051834

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — AB Lietuvos draudimas, insurer; interested person — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu; owner XX — recipient of the insurance payment; insurer’s representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer obtained an award for reimbursement of compensation paid for apartment damage. The court linked the damage to the condition of a shared water riser under the association’s management.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court awarded AB Lietuvos draudimas 596 euros in damages and interest against the apartment association Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65. It linked the apartment damage to a leak in the shared water riser whose condition the association was obliged to monitor. The insurer compensated owner XX for ceiling damage after the leak and brought the transferred claim against the association for the amount paid. Evidence included the policy, damage notice, photographs, inspection report, repair estimate and payment order. The association received court materials but did not respond or object within the deadline. The court found the source of the water in the shared riser. Ordinary upkeep and repair of that part of the building are performed through the association. It found the riser’s condition improper and causation proved: if properly maintained, water would not have entered the insured apartment. The association supplied no evidence rebutting those findings or justifying breach of duty. The decision rests on assessment of the materials, not merely the absence of a response. The ruling of 3 March 2023 awarded 596 euros in compensation, 38 euros in accrued interest and further statutory interest on 596 euros from 8 February 2023 until performance. The insurer also sought the costs of applying to court. The court reduced reimbursable representative time: the case did not require the three and a half hours claimed. It awarded 290 euros in costs, comprising a 50 euro fee and 240 euros in legal assistance, with statutory interest after entry into force. The award does not confirm that the association has already transferred those sums.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the insurer’s application. Award 596 euros in damages, 38 euros in accrued interest and statutory interest on 596 euros from 08.02.2023 until performance against the association. Allocate costs to it; award 290 euros and statutory interest on costs after entry into force.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

2. Order Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu to pay AB “Lietuvos draudimas“ 596 euros in damages and 38 euros in late-payment interest that has fallen due.

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.

09.02.2023 · RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-138703/7Read actFirst instance09.02.2023

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.

Case 2-20-16829Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kraavi tn 14 korteriühistu · 80280195

Damage and insuranceInsurance payment and insurer’s claim

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer and association agreed that the insurer would no longer maintain its damages demand and would reimburse 720 euros in costs. The court approved the terms and terminated the case.

09.12.2022 · RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-20-16829/30Read actFirst instance09.12.2022

Separate act page

Kraavi tn 14: insurer waived its demand by agreement and undertook to reimburse association costs

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kraavi tn 14 korteriühistu · Swedbank P&C Insurance AS · 80280195 · 11269248

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Swedbank P&C Insurance AS; interested person — Narva linn, Kraavi tn 14 korteriühistu; participants’ representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer and association agreed that the insurer would no longer maintain its damages demand and would reimburse 720 euros in costs. The court approved the terms and terminated the case.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Swedbank P&C Insurance AS and the apartment association Narva linn, Kraavi tn 14 ended a damages dispute by settlement. The insurer waived its demand and undertook to reimburse the association 720 euros in costs. The ruling does not describe the original cause or amount of damage or the association’s detailed objections. The outcome therefore does not explain which party was right on the merits of that damage. It confirms an agreed end to the dispute. The parties submitted their agreement on 9 December 2022 and requested approval. The insurer confirmed that it no longer had any complaints or claims against the association in this dispute. It undertook to transfer the association’s costs within five working days after entry into force. The agreement states 600 euros plus 120 euros in tax, totalling 720 euros. The court found no obstacles to approval and terminated proceedings. Each participant bears costs not provided for in the agreement. The court ordered a 25 euro refund to the insurer, half the fee. The parties agreed to exclude appeals, and the court stated the ruling was not appealable. The costs amount is set by agreement, rather than a separate examination of every expense and the original claim’s circumstances. The duty to transfer 720 euros does not confirm actual payment to the association. The fee refund from the budget is likewise ordered, not shown as already performed.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement on the insurer’s waiver of the demand and absence of claims against the association. The insurer reimburses the association 720 euros in costs within five working days after entry into force. Terminate proceedings and leave other costs to participants. Refund the insurer a 25 euro fee.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

II. Terminate proceedings on Swedbank P&C Insurance AS’s application against Narva linn, Kraavi tn 14 korteriühistu for damages.

Case 3-20-1323Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu · 80121083

Repairs and shared property

Latest prepared act · 30.11.2022 · № 3-20-1323/23

How it started · editorial summary

XX sought an order requiring Narva to continue supervision and issue a binding notice to the association over partition walls. The appellate court refused: the city had investigated the concern and grounds for further measures were not substantiated.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 3

30.11.2022 · JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 3-20-1323/23Read actAppeal30.11.2022

Separate act page

Safety of partition walls: must the city continue building supervision?

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu · Narva linn · ·

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and appellant — XX; Respondent — Narva linn; Third party — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The dispute and the court’s decision

XX approached Narva over the alleged danger posed by partition walls between apartments and then sought an administrative court order requiring further supervision and a binding notice to Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu. City inspections found no signs of disintegration or danger. XX considered visual inspection insufficient and sought a fuller assessment. Tartu Ringkonnakohus upheld the administrative court’s refusal. It held that owners bear primary responsibility for maintaining a safe building; municipal supervision does not replace resolution of a private-law dispute about repairs and costs. The city had investigated the stated concern. XX identified no specific signs of structural damage that would undermine the inspections and call for further supervisory measures. The court did not require the city to organise repairs, determine their price or allocate costs between owners and the association. Who must pay for repairs or expert assessment, and in what proportions, was not decided in this case. The appeal was dismissed and the earlier judgment upheld. No costs were awarded to the city or association because the required documents and cost lists had not been submitted.

Outcome of this decision

The appeal was dismissed and Tartu Halduskohus’s judgment of 20.01.2022 upheld. On the facts established here, the city need not continue supervision or issue a notice to the association. XX bears their own costs; no costs were awarded to the city or association.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

Dismiss the appeal and uphold Tartu Halduskohus’s judgment of 20 January 2022.

20.01.2022 · Judgment in an administrative caseTartu Halduskohus · First instance · № 3-20-1323/17Read actFirst instance20.01.2022

Separate act page

A. Puškini tn 13: request to require Narva to continue state supervision of partitions refused

Judgment in an administrative case · Tartu Halduskohus · First instance

Narva linn · Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu · · 80121083

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant XX – person bringing the administrative complaint; respondent – Narva linn; third party – Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu; applicant’s representative XX; city representative XX; third party’s representative XX; supervisory official XX

How it started · editorial summary

Owner XX challenged the end of supervision over the partitions’ condition and sought a binding direction to the association; the city relied on inspections carried out.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Applicant XX sought an order requiring Narva linn to continue state supervision and issue a direction to the apartment association Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 to repair partitions. XX considered the structures dangerous and argued that visual inspections were insufficient to check the risk. The city was the respondent, and the association participated as a third party. The city reported two inspections: the second found no wall collapse or falling blocks and no change since the first. An expert survey was recommended to clarify the technical condition, which the owner or association could commission. The city considered coercive intervention by the supervisory authority unnecessary. The court first rejected the applicant’s request to amend the complaint because the letter ending supervision was not a suitable object for a claim to annul an administrative act. It also refused the city’s request to leave the complaint unexamined: there were no obvious grounds, and the dispute needed consideration on the merits. On the merits, the court found that the city had begun supervision, taken steps and assessed the findings. The materials did not establish sufficient public interest or a need for further coercive measures; the applicant could protect rights through relations with the association and civil proceedings. State supervision does not replace owners’ duties to maintain the building. The judgment of 20 January 2022 dismissed the demand to compel continued supervision. Each participant was left to bear its own costs. This is not an engineering finding that the structures are unconditionally safe and does not decide a separate private-law dispute over repair or association liability. The applicant’s requested 600 euros in costs was not awarded.

Outcome of this decision

Refuse applicant XX’s request to amend the complaint and Narva linn’s request to leave it unexamined. Dismiss the demand to require the city to continue supervision and issue a direction to the association. Each participant bears its own costs.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

1. Dismiss XX’s application of 21.12.2021 to amend the complaint. […] 2. Dismiss Narva linn’s application to leave the complaint unexamined. […] 3. Dismiss XX’s complaint. […] 4. The participants shall bear their own litigation costs.

22.01.2021 · Court orderTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 3-20-1323/11Read actAppeal22.01.2021

Separate act page

The association’s participation in a wall-repair supervision dispute

Court order · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu · Narva linn · ·

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant in the main case — XX; Respondent — Narva linn; Third party and appellant against the order — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The association challenged its joinder as a third party to administrative proceedings against the city. The appellate court upheld joinder because the possible outcome affected the association’s repair-related rights and obligations.

The dispute and the court’s decision

XX sought an order requiring Narva to continue building supervision and issue a wall-repair notice to Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu. The administrative court admitted the claim and joined the association as a third party. The association appealed against joinder, arguing that the dispute concerned only the city’s conduct and would create unnecessary costs for it. Tartu Ringkonnakohus held that the outcome could require continued supervision of the association, impose an obligation or at least require reconsideration. The court could therefore determine the association’s rights, making third-party participation mandatory. The claim’s perceived prospects and potential costs did not remove that requirement. The association’s appeal was dismissed and joinder upheld. The court explained that the association could choose how actively to participate and seek reimbursement of costs under the statutory conditions. This act did not decide repairs, the existence of danger or the merits of XX’s underlying claim.

Outcome of this decision

The association remains a third party: its appeal was dismissed and point 5 of Tartu Halduskohus’s 30.11.2020 order upheld. This act did not impose a duty to repair the partition wall.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

Dismiss the appeal of A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu and uphold point 5 of the operative part of Tartu Halduskohus’s order of 30 November 2020.

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.

20.10.2022 · Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-126130/5Read actFirst instance20.10.2022

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.

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.

17.10.2022 · RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-134627/3Read actFirst instance17.10.2022

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.

Case 2-22-11550Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 13 korteriühistu · 80445319

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeBudget, management plan and ratesArticles of association and amendmentsApartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the boardAuthority and representationRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairsAgenda and minutes

How it started · editorial summary

Owner XX obtained a declaration that decisions on repairs, the chair and maintenance charges were void. The court relied on breaches involving the agenda and preparation of the meeting.

10.10.2022 · RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-11550/8Read actFirst instance10.10.2022

Separate act page

P. Kerese tn 13: decisions on payments and chair void because of the meeting agenda

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 13 korteriühistu · 80445319

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant XX – owner; interested person – Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 13 korteriühistu; applicant’s representative XX; association representative and elected chair XX

How it started · editorial summary

Owner XX obtained a declaration that decisions on repairs, the chair and maintenance charges were void. The court relied on breaches involving the agenda and preparation of the meeting.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court declared several decisions of the apartment association Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 13 repeat meeting of 9 June 2022 without legal effect from adoption. Significant matters had not been identified in advance on the agenda, and access arrangements for the management plan being amended had not been provided. Owner XX challenged a special contribution of 5 euros per square metre to complete repairs, election of the chair, the chair’s monthly remuneration and a maintenance charge of 0,51 euros per square metre. XX argued that these decisions could not be taken under a general current-matters item. XX also disputed the meeting’s authority to elect the chair and the ability to impose payments outside the management plan. The association admitted the stated circumstances but asked that each participant bear its own costs. The applicant considered that the association should pay them. The court relied on the admitted facts: owners could not understand in advance which decisions would be taken. It regarded the chair and payments as significant matters and the convening breach as sufficient for nullity. Access arrangements for the management plan had not been properly specified. The court did not decide the other arguments: it imposed no general ban on a meeting electing a chair and did not separately assess payments outside the plan. The ruling of 10 October 2022 declared item 3 and items 4.1–4.3 void. Each bears its own costs. The court took account of the possibility of an out-of-court resolution and another meeting before the application was filed.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the application. Declare item 3 on the 5 euros/m² payment and items 4.1–4.3 on chair XX, monthly remuneration and the 0,51 euros/m² maintenance charge from 01.06.2022 void. Leave costs with the participants; none are reimbursed.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

3. The participants shall bear their own litigation costs. There are no reimbursable litigation costs.

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.

10.10.2022 · Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-15067/4Read actFirst instance10.10.2022

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.

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.

26.09.2022 · Court orderViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-21-141342/4Read actFirst instance26.09.2022

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.

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.

20.09.2022 · RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-115560/7Read actFirst instance20.09.2022

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.

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.

13.09.2022 · RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-20-114528/26Read actFirst instance13.09.2022

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.

Case 2-22-10488Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kooli põik 1 korteriühistu · 80479442

How it started · editorial summary

The association’s registration case remained suspended. Its challenge to the requirement to file a claim first was dismissed.

12.09.2022 · RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-22-10488/6Read actAppeal12.09.2022

Separate act page

Kooli põik 1: appeal upheld suspension of registration proceedings

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, Kooli põik 1 korteriühistu · 80479442

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant and appellant – Narva linn, Kooli põik 1 korteriühistu; association representatives XX; Tartu Maakohus registration department – body that issued the challenged ruling

How it started · editorial summary

The association’s registration case remained suspended. Its challenge to the requirement to file a claim first was dismissed.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Narva linn, Kooli põik 1 did not obtain reversal of the suspension of proceedings on its register-entry application. The circuit court dismissed the appeal. On 1 July 2022, an assistant judge in Tartu Maakohus’s registration department suspended consideration of the application and set a deadline for the association’s board to file a claim. The association sought reversal of that ruling. The document does not explain in detail what dispute had to be resolved by a claim or what entry was requested. By its ruling of 12 September 2022, Tartu Ringkonnakohus retained the suspension and direction. This determines the progress of registration proceedings, rather than granting or finally refusing registration. The court expressly stated that it would not prepare an account of the case or reasons because dismissal of this type of appeal cannot be further appealed to Riigikohus. The document therefore lacks a detailed explanation for suspension. The correctness of the future entry was not decided on its merits.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss the association’s appeal and leave the registration department ruling of 01.07.2022 No. Ü50078749/M2 unchanged.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

Dismiss Narva linn, Kooli põik 1 korteriühistu’s appeal against the ruling and leave the Tartu Maakohus registration department assistant judge’s ruling of 1 July 2022 No. Ü 50078749/M2 unchanged.