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 2-18-133659Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Joala tn 11 korteriühistu · 80189885

Contracts and servicesWorks contracts and designPayment, advance payments and refundsApartment association bills, payments and debtsLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

How it started · editorial summary

The appeal court replaced the dispute’s earlier result with a settlement between association and contractor. The association undertook to pay 3 356,20 euros and proceedings ended.

· RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-18-133659/52Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Joala tn 11: appeal settlement with contractor approved in place of earlier judgment

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, Joala tn 11 korteriühistu · Katuse ABC OÜ · 80189885 · 11336757

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and respondent on appeal – Katuse ABC OÜ; defendant and appellant – Narva linn, Joala tn 11 korteriühistu; organisations’ representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

The appeal court replaced the dispute’s earlier result with a settlement between association and contractor. The association undertook to pay 3 356,20 euros and proceedings ended.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Narva linn, Joala tn 11 and Katuse ABC OÜ settled their works-contract payment dispute on appeal. The circuit court set aside the first-instance judgment, approved payment of 3 356,20 euros under a settlement and terminated proceedings. The contractor sought payment for works and late-payment interest. Viru Maakohus had previously granted the claim, awarding 2 556,20 euros in contractual fees, accrued interest and continuing interest of 0,05% per day. The association appealed, seeking dismissal and costs against the contractor. This ruling does not set out its objections’ detailed grounds. Before the appeal was decided, the parties submitted an agreement. The association undertook to pay the contractor 3 356,20 euros within five working days after it enters into force. Delay entails a contractual penalty of 0,03% of that sum for each day. This is a new settlement term and must not be confused with interest under the judgment set aside. The court checked that the agreement was enforceable and consistent with law, good morals and substantial public interest. It replaced wording on waiver of remaining claims with confirmation that only demands under the approved agreement remain in this case. The dispute thus ended by agreement, rather than an independent waiver of the contractor’s claim. Each party bears its own costs. The court ordered a refund to the association of 210 euros, half the appeal fee. Fees for earlier stages were not refunded because the settlement was reached on appeal. The parties waived appeal against the ruling, and the court stated that no appeal was permitted. The document does not confirm actual payment of the agreed sum.

Outcome of this decision

Set aside the Viru Maakohus judgment of 27.06.2022, approve the settlement and terminate proceedings. The association pays Katuse ABC OÜ 3 356,20 euros within five working days after the agreement enters into force; delay entails a daily contractual penalty of 0,03% of that amount. Each bears its own costs. No demands remain in this case except those under the agreement. Refund the association 210 euros of the appeal fee.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1.3. The parties shall bear their own litigation costs.
Appeal
Case 2-16-13377Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 44 korteriühistu · 80146002

Contracts and servicesWorks contracts and designQuality and acceptance of worksRepairs and shared propertyRoof and atticDamage and insuranceLeaks and floodingDamage caused during repairsAmount of compensation

How it started · editorial summary

After the contractor’s failed repair, the association engaged another contractor and sought reimbursement.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-13377/118Read act

Separate act page

Defective roof works: recovery of rectification costs

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 44 korteriühistu · OÜ IMHOTEPKOMP · OÜ Alakki · 80146002 · 11482887 ·

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and customer — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 44 korteriühistu; Defendant and contractor — OÜ IMHOTEPKOMP

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought 1500 euros from a contractor for defective replacement of roof pipes. The court found defects in both the original and warranty works and awarded the full amount claimed.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 44 korteriühistu, additionally named Korteriühistu KANGELASTE 44, sought 1500 euros from OÜ IMHOTEPKOMP for rectifying defective work. The contractor replaced 17 roof pipes; the work was accepted and paid for. Leaks later appeared. The association notified the defects and the contractor began warranty repairs, but the association stopped them as technically unsuitable and engaged OÜ Alakki. The court assessed an audit, court-appointed expert evidence, testimony and photographs. It found unsuitable components and inadequate sealing that allowed moisture beneath the roof covering. Video of proper technique on another site did not prove it had been used on this building. Both the original work and attempted repair were found deficient. The contractor had been given an opportunity to remedy defects. Absence of the formal record required by the contract did not negate written notices and repairs begun. However, the court excluded the part repaired by another firm before the contractor was notified. Later rectification and audit costs supported compensation. The claim was granted within the 1500 euros requested. Procedural costs were imposed on the contractor, with their amount to be fixed separately.

Outcome of this decision

OÜ IMHOTEPKOMP must pay the association 1500 euros within the amount claimed. It bears its own and the association’s procedural costs, the latter to be fixed separately. Permission to appeal was granted.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Grant the claim in full. […] The court grants permission to appeal.
First instance
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-16-13377/130Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Kangelaste 44: contractor must reimburse correction of roof defects

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Korteriühistu KANGELASTE 44; Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 44 korteriühistu · Osaühing IMHOTEPKOMP · 80146002 · 11482887

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – Korteriühistu KANGELASTE 44; Defendant and appellant – Osaühing IMHOTEPKOMP

How it started · editorial summary

After the contractor’s failed repair, the association engaged another contractor and sought reimbursement.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The circuit court upheld the award of 1 500 euros against Osaühing IMHOTEPKOMP in favour of the apartment association KANGELASTE 44 for remedying roof defects, changing the reasons in part. Korteriühistu KANGELASTE 44 sought 1 500 euros in damages from Osaühing IMHOTEPKOMP after replacement of 17 roof ventilation pipes. The association alleged that the contractor damaged roofing around the pipes, causing leaks, and attempted repairs with bitumen mastic did not cure the defects. Another company was engaged for repairs and a building audit commissioned. The contractor argued that it was not given sufficient time or opportunity to remedy the work and that the expenses were excessive. The county court granted the claim. Tartu Ringkonnakohus upheld the 1 500-euro award, clarifying its legal reasoning and assessment of the amount. Expert materials and witness testimony supported defects in both the original work and attempted repair. Failed remedial work was a fundamental breach of contract. The association therefore did not have to give the contractor yet another additional deadline and could engage another contractor to remedy the defects. The circuit court found 1 143,84 euros for remedial work and 360 euros for the audit justified. The total established was 1 503,84 euros, but the association sought only 1 500 euros and that was awarded. Another company’s later, cheaper estimate did not prove the actual cost of the relevant repairs. Appeal costs were imposed on IMHOTEPKOMP; the county court will quantify them after the judgment becomes final. The judgment confirms the contractor’s compensation obligation, rather than an actual payment to the association.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss IMHOTEPKOMP’s appeal and uphold the association’s 1 500-euro award. Amend the reasoning in part. The contractor bears appeal costs, to be quantified separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Dismiss the appeal and leave the Viru Maakohus judgment of 11 March 2019 unchanged. Amend the county court judgment’s reasoning in part.
Appeal
Case 2-18-130679Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 9 korteriühistu · 80021803

Contracts and servicesWorks contracts and designQuality and acceptance of worksPayment, advance payments and refundsRepairs and shared propertyFaçade, windows and balconies

How it started · editorial summary

The design fee dispute depended on the agreed window count, fire safety and the client’s acceptance of the result.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-18-130679/23Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

A. Daumani 9: designer’s claim for remaining payment dismissed

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

OÜ NARVA EHITUSPROJEKT · Narva linn, A. Daumani tn 9 korteriühistu · 11002901 · 80021803

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant, designer — OÜ NARVA EHITUSPROJEKT; Defendant, client — Narva linn, A. Daumani tn 9 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The design fee dispute depended on the agreed window count, fire safety and the client’s acceptance of the result.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court dismissed OÜ NARVA EHITUSPROJEKT’s claim for the remaining facade design payment from the apartment association A. Daumani tn 9 because the work did not meet agreed terms. OÜ NARVA EHITUSPROJEKT sought 2 016 euros outstanding for a facade reconstruction design, late-payment interest and 40 euros in recovery costs from Narva linn, A. Daumani tn 9 korteriühistu. The association had paid a 504 euro advance but refused the final design and ended the contract. The disputed term was the number of basement windows: the client insisted on 15, while the designer invoked fire safety requirements and supplied a version with more. The court found 15 windows an agreed essential term despite the number not being separately stated in the signed contract. This followed from the initial design, correspondence and explanations. The design also had to meet mandatory safety requirements. The first version lacked the necessary smoke extraction analysis. The later version took fire safety requirements into account but departed from the agreed window count without client consent. Neither version therefore complied with the contract. Administrative approval alone did not replace compliance with contractual terms. The association objected in time and refused acceptance. The court treated its termination notice as lawful withdrawal from the contract for breach. The designer also withheld permission to use the work until full acceptance, so there was no basis to pay for a separately delivered part. The claim was dismissed in full, with costs allocated to the designer and the amount set later. The court did not assess another provider’s design or the lawfulness of its approvals.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss OÜ NARVA EHITUSPROJEKT’s claim in full. The claimant bears all court costs, with the amount determined after entry into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Dismiss OÜ NARVA EHITUSPROJEKT’s debt claim against Narva linn, A. Daumani tn 9 korteriühistu.
First instance
Case 2-17-10653Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 33 korteriühistu · 80082986

Water and seweragePipes, risers and sewerageRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairsContracts and servicesWorks contracts and designApartment association meetings and decisions

How it started · editorial summary

The circuit court examined the reopening application instead of leaving it unexamined, but found no grounds to reopen the case.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-10653/23Read act

Separate act page

Non-attendance: an association dispute left unexamined

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 33 korteriühistu · 80082986

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — XX; Defendant — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 33 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

After XX did not attend, the claim against the association was left unexamined. The appellate court later changed only the ruling on restoration: it examined and refused that request without deciding the meeting-resolution dispute on its merits.

The dispute and the court’s decision

XX sued Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 33 korteriühistu, formerly Korteriühistu Punane Maja, to invalidate meeting resolutions of 10.05.2017. The preserved subsequent order states that the disputed resolutions concerned a contract to replace water pipes, requiring owners to provide telephone numbers, and a contract for legal services. After XX and their representative did not attend, the court granted the association’s request to leave the claim unexamined. XX objected that the representative had not received a separate summons and the case could not be disposed of this way. The court found that XX had personally received the summons before notifying a new representative. Documents, including the summons, were then made available to the representative electronically. The court considered notice proper. The hearing record confirmed the association’s request, so the court had not acted of its own initiative. No sufficient excuse for absence or request to hear the case without XX was established. The objection was rejected. The restoration request was left unexamined as filed before a written order and its service. The claim itself was also left unexamined, not dismissed on its merits. Costs were imposed on XX, to be fixed separately. Later, on 3 September 2018, Tartu Ringkonnakohus changed only the ruling on the request to restore proceedings: the request had to be examined, but was refused. The claim remained unexamined, the other parts of the order were upheld, and XX bears the appeal costs.

Outcome of this decision

Initially, the procedural objection was refused and the restoration request and claim were left unexamined. On 3 September 2018, Tartu Ringkonnakohus changed only the restoration ruling: the request was examined but refused. The other parts of the order, including leaving the claim unexamined, were upheld. XX bears appeal costs; the substantive validity of the meeting resolutions was not decided.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Leave XX’s application of 17 May 2018 to restore proceedings unexamined.
First instance
· RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-17-10653/27Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 33: reopening application examined, but case not reopened

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 33 korteriühistu · 80082986

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and appellant — XX; Defendant — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 33 korteriühistu (also called Korteriühistu Punane Maja)

How it started · editorial summary

The circuit court examined the reopening application instead of leaving it unexamined, but found no grounds to reopen the case.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Tartu Ringkonnakohus changed the procedural outcome but did not reopen XX’s case against Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 33 korteriühistu. Instead of leaving the reopening application unexamined, it examined and rejected it. The main claim remained unexamined. The claimant challenged meeting decisions of 10 May 2017 on replacing water pipes using an unnamed company, owners providing telephone numbers, and a contract with a lawyer. The court initially granted the claim by default but reopened proceedings after the association applied to set aside the default judgment (kaja). The claimant and representative then failed to attend the hearing on 15 May 2018. At the association’s request, the court left the claim unexamined. The claimant requested reopening, arguing that the representative had not been sent a separate summons and therefore did not know about the hearing. The claimant also denied that the association had requested leaving the claim unexamined. The association opposed the appeal, arguing among other things that it was late. The circuit court found that the summons was sent to the claimant before the court was notified of the representative. The claimant received it personally, and on the day the representative notified the court of their authority, the representative obtained electronic access to all materials, including the summons. In those circumstances, the court did not have to send the same summons again. The association’s request to leave the claim unexamined was recorded in the minutes. The claimant did not substantiate a valid reason for absence or an inability to report it in time. However, the court found it wrong to refuse to examine the reopening application merely because it had been filed before the ruling was put in writing: the participant already knew the decision announced at the hearing. It remedied the defect itself, examined the application and refused reopening. The remainder was upheld and appeal costs allocated to the claimant; the county court will determine the amount separately. The meeting decisions’ validity was not determined on the merits by this ruling.

Outcome of this decision

Set aside the ruling of 25 May 2018 only insofar as it left the reopening application unexamined. Issue a new ruling in that part refusing reopening. Uphold the remainder; XX bears appeal costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. Uphold the county court’s ruling in all other respects.
Appeal
Case 2-16-129462Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 47b korteriühistu · 80145356

Contracts and servicesWorks contracts and designQuality and acceptance of worksPayment, advance payments and refundsRepairs and shared propertyFaçade, windows and balconiesApartment association bills, payments and debtsPayment accounting and set-offLate-payment interest and consequences of delayOrganisation and funding of repairs

How it started · editorial summary

The appeal court rejected the association’s repair reimbursement claim and retained its obligation to pay the contractor, adding late-payment interest. Evidence of defects at the alleged time and notification was insufficient.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-129462/71Read act

Separate act page

Kangelaste 47b and Mirstart OÜ: defective works, costs and set-off

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Mirstart OÜ · KÜ Kangelaste 47b · 11234391 · 80145356

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and counterclaim defendant — Mirstart OÜ; defendant and counterclaimant — KÜ Kangelaste 47b

How it started · editorial summary

Defects justified withholding payment and recovery of repair costs, with the final result determined by set-off.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Kangelaste 47b (now — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 47b korteriühistu). Mirstart OÜ sought the outstanding price of construction works and late-payment interest from KÜ Kangelaste 47b. The association counterclaimed for the cost of remedying defects. The cases were joined after proceedings on earlier default judgments were reopened. The works included renewal of the plinth and paving and installation of canopies. The court found the defective cladding proved by photographs: tiles had fallen off extensively soon after handover. Acceptance did not prevent reliance on defects. The documents as a whole showed timely knowledge by the contractor, which failed to remedy them within a reasonable time. Third-party repair costs of 5544 euros were found necessary and reasonable. Lawful withholding of the price balance was temporary; the court did not find a price reduction or effective withdrawal from the contract. Once the cost claim was allowed, the basis for withholding ended, so principal of 3039.27 euros* was upheld. Late-payment interest of 683.21 euros was refused because lawful withholding was not late performance. Further late-payment interest was also refused because the mutual claims were set off. The court allowed the counterclaim and applied set-off, awarding the association 2500 euros* against Mirstart OÜ. Each party bears its costs. Payment of that award was not established.

Outcome of this decision

The principal claim was allowed for 3039.27 euros* without late-payment interest; following the counterclaim and set-off, 2500 euros* was awarded to the association against Mirstart OÜ.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
5. Each party shall bear its own costs.
First instance
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-16-129462/83Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Kangelaste 47b: appeal court rejected association’s repair correction costs and awarded payment to contractor

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ Kangelaste 47b · Mirstart OÜ · 80145356 · 1123439

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: contractor Mirstart OÜ – claimant and defendant to the joined demand, appellant; apartment association – customer, defendant and claimant on the joined demand, appellant; parties’ representatives and expert XX

How it started · editorial summary

The appeal court rejected the association’s repair reimbursement claim and retained its obligation to pay the contractor, adding late-payment interest. Evidence of defects at the alleged time and notification was insufficient.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The circuit court allowed Mirstart OÜ’s appeal and dismissed the apartment association Kangelaste 47b’s appeal. After review, the association was ordered to pay the contractor 3 039,27* euros in outstanding fees, 1 017,61 euros in accrued late-payment interest and continuing statutory late-payment interest. The association’s claim for the cost of correcting works was dismissed. The contractor repaired the plinth and lintel and installed two canopies. The association alleged that facing panels began detaching and that the contractor had been notified but did not remedy the defects. It hired another company and sought reimbursement, taking account of the unpaid part of the original work. The contractor disputed the defects at the stated time and proper notification. The first-instance court granted the contractor’s monetary claim without interest, recognised the association’s claim and set them off. The association appealed only the allocation of costs; the contractor appealed the award to the association and refusal of interest. The circuit court assessed the evidence differently. Photographs from September 2016 did not establish the state of works in summer 2015: by the time of photography, the new contractor could already have started dismantling. A copy of a letter did not prove receipt. Board minutes without the contractor representative’s signature proved neither participation nor notification of defects. A new paid contract for filling joints also did not prove an agreement to remedy defects in the former work. It contained no such reference. The association had not proved defects at the alleged time, notification or a deadline for remedy; the contractual procedure for engaging an expert had also not been followed. The set-off and earlier award in favour of the association were therefore set aside. Costs at both levels were imposed on the association, to be quantified separately by the county court. Dismissal of the association’s claim concerns proof of the conditions for liability, rather than an established absence of any defects in the repairs.

Outcome of this decision

Grant Mirstart OÜ’s claim and dismiss the association’s claim. Award 3 039,27* euros in principal, 1 017,61 euros in accrued late-payment interest and statutory late-payment interest on principal from the judgment date until payment against the association. Allow the contractor’s appeal and dismiss the association’s. The association bears costs at both levels, to be quantified separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
4. Allow Mirstart OÜ’s appeal.
Appeal
Case 2-18-102661Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Joala tn 11 korteriühistu · 80189885

Contracts and servicesWorks contracts and designPayment, advance payments and refundsApartment association bills, payments and debtsInstalments and payment schedules

How it started · editorial summary

The association and contractor settled the dispute about returning an advance. The court approved four payments totalling 1 095,82 euros and terminated the case.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-18-102661/4Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Joala tn 11: contractor agreed to return the remaining advance in four payments

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Joala tn 11 korteriühistu · OÜ Disainteenused · 80189885 · 12513609

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — apartment association, client commissioning the works; debtor — OÜ Disainteenused, contractor; organisations’ representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association and contractor settled the dispute about returning an advance. The court approved four payments totalling 1 095,82 euros and terminated the case.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court approved an agreement between Narva linn, Joala tn 11 korteriühistu and OÜ Disainteenused for payment of 1 095,82 euros and terminated the case. The agreed sum includes 1 030,82 euros in principal, a 45 euro fee and 20 euros in procedural costs. The association alleged that the company received an advance for works but the contract was terminated early for non-performance. The parties determined the value of work done and agreed return of the unused advance. The association claimed that the company had returned only part and sought the balance. This is a claim against a contractor, rather than an owner’s apartment maintenance debt. The company initially objected to a payment order and the case was transferred to Viru Maakohus. The participants then submitted a payment schedule and requested an end to the dispute. The court found the agreement admissible and enforceable. It did not separately decide the company’s request to withdraw its earlier objection: after approval, that no longer affected the outcome. Payment was set in four parts: 273,95 euros by 25 April, May and June 2018, and 273,97 euros by 25 July 2018. The company may pay earlier; it bears its own costs. The ruling does not confirm actual performance of the schedule.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement: OÜ Disainteenused pays the association 1 095,82 euros — 273,95 euros by 25.04, 25.05 and 25.06.2018 and 273,97 euros by 25.07.2018; early payment is permitted. Leave the company’s own costs to it. Terminate the case and allocate costs under the agreement.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Terminate the proceedings in civil case No 2-18-102661.
First instance
Case 2-16-129736Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Malmi tn 10 korteriühistu · 80175972

Contracts and servicesWorks contracts and designPayment, advance payments and refundsRepairs and shared propertyRoof and atticOrganisation and funding of repairs

How it started · editorial summary

The extra 500 euros was not awarded: in this case the signed invoice confirmed receipt of the document, rather than agreement to increase the price.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-16-129736/36Read act

Separate act page

Malmitare and OÜ Hiolen: an invoice did not prove an extra-payment agreement

Judgment · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

OÜ Hiolen · KÜ Malmitare · 12530714 · 80175972

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — OÜ Hiolen; defendant — KÜ Malmitare

How it started · editorial summary

A signature acknowledging receipt did not prove agreement on extra materials and price.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Malmitare (now — Narva linn, Malmi tn 10 korteriühistu). OÜ Hiolen sought 500 euros from KÜ Malmitare for additional roofing materials. The main roof-repair contract had been performed: the works were accepted and the agreed price paid. The dispute concerned a separate extra charge. The contractor treated the association representative’s signature on the invoice as confirmation of a contract amendment; the association said it only acknowledged receipt. The court agreed with the association. The contract prescribed a written amendment procedure which had not been followed. The acceptance record, final invoice, correspondence and meeting minutes did not establish an additional agreement. The documents and disputed invoice identified the same roofing material. The signature on the invoice was insufficient to prove a new obligation to pay for materials. The claim was dismissed. Hiolen bears its own and the association’s costs; the latter will be quantified separately after finality. The court granted permission to appeal.

Outcome of this decision

The 500-euro extra charge was refused; OÜ Hiolen bears costs, with the association’s costs quantified separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Dismiss OÜ Hiolen’s claim.
First instance
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-16-129736/45Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Malmitare: contractor did not prove agreement on extra payment for roofing material

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

OÜ Hiolen · KÜ Malmitare · 12530714 · 80175972

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and appellant – OÜ Hiolen, contractor; Defendant – KÜ Malmitare, customer

How it started · editorial summary

The extra 500 euros was not awarded: in this case the signed invoice confirmed receipt of the document, rather than agreement to increase the price.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Tartu Ringkonnakohus dismissed OÜ Hiolen’s appeal and upheld the refusal to award an additional 500 euros for roofing material against KÜ Malmitare. The court found that the contractor had not proved the association’s consent to increase the price or enter a separate additional-payment agreement. The contractor had repaired the roof and alleged that the parties agreed to buy higher-quality material for an additional charge. It relied on an invoice dated 4 November 2014 signed by representatives of both parties and sworn testimony from its representative. It argued that the signatures confirmed a contract amendment. The association objected that it had fully paid the agreed price of 28 378,12 euros for works and materials. It said the signature on the additional invoice confirmed only receipt of the document. There was no agreement to increase the price, and the final invoice and acceptance certificate retained the former price. The circuit court agreed with the association. The contractual estimate bound the contractor. To demand more, it had to prove a change to the total price or a separate agreement to cover the increase. The contract required a written amendment procedure: a written proposal by one party and a written reply by the other within five working days. The court did not see expressed consent to amend the contract in the disputed invoice; a note about agreement between the parties was insufficient. Neither the association’s conduct nor the contractor representative’s testimony established a separate agreement. Dismissal of the claim remained in force. Appeal costs were imposed on OÜ Hiolen; the county court will quantify them after the judgment becomes final. The judgment concerns proof of this specific extra charge and does not establish that a signature on any invoice always has the same meaning.

Outcome of this decision

Leave the Viru Maakohus judgment of 29 September 2017 unchanged and dismiss OÜ Hiolen’s appeal. The contractor bears appeal costs; the county court will quantify them after the judgment becomes final.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
The county court shall determine the monetary amount of litigation costs when the judgment becomes final.
Appeal
Case 2-16-12370Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, V. Gerassimovi tn 24 korteriühistu · 80152362

Contracts and servicesWorks contracts and designPayment, advance payments and refunds

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought repayment of an advance under a contract it said had not been performed; the company did not respond to the claim.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-12370/5Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Gerassimovi 24: company ordered by default to refund an advance for key cutting

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Gerassimovi 24 · OÜ Farkam · 80152362 · 10176071

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – KÜ Gerassimovi 24; Defendant – OÜ Farkam; Organisations’ legal representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought repayment of an advance under a contract it said had not been performed; the company did not respond to the claim.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court granted the apartment association Gerassimovi 24’s claim against OÜ Farkam by default and awarded repayment of a 750-euro advance. It separately awarded 125 euros in court fees against the company. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security. According to the association, the parties entered a key-copying contract on 3 February 2016. The association transferred a 750-euro advance on 12 February, but the company did not do the work or respond to the complaint. The association sought its money back. The claim and the ruling accepting it were served on the company on 31 October 2016 by placement in the mailbox at its registered address. No response arrived within the 14 days allowed. The court granted the claim under the default judgment procedure. The association did not supply a statement of litigation costs despite being given time to do so. The court therefore quantified costs on the materials available: payment of a 125-euro court fee was established, and no other costs were identified. The judgment confirms the company’s obligation to refund the advance and reimburse the fee, but not actual receipt of the money by the association.

Outcome of this decision

Award the association 750 euros as repayment of the advance and 125 euros in court fees against OÜ Farkam. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. The default judgment is immediately enforceable without security.
First instance
Case 2-16-102866Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Uusküla tn 1 korteriühistu · 80175825

Contracts and servicesWorks contracts and designPayment, advance payments and refundsApartment association bills, payments and debtsLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

How it started · editorial summary

The court approved the agreed payment and late-payment interest, terminated the dispute and awarded the company a refund of half the court fee.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-102866/5Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Uusküla 1 and Katuse ABC: works contract dispute ended by agreement

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Katuse ABC Osaühing · UUSKÜLA TN 1 KORTERIÜHISTU · 11336757 · 80175825

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – Katuse ABC Osaühing; Defendant – UUSKÜLA TN 1 KORTERIÜHISTU

How it started · editorial summary

The court approved the agreed payment and late-payment interest, terminated the dispute and awarded the company a refund of half the court fee.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Katuse ABC Osaühing brought a works contract claim against the apartment association Uusküla tn 1. The parties settled the dispute by an agreement which the court approved, terminating proceedings. The initial 914,75 euros had been claimed in payment order proceedings; following the association’s objection, the case was transferred to ordinary civil proceedings. The agreement records an acknowledged debt of 85,25 euros* and provides for payment to the company of 82,25 euros* by 15 April 2016, with early payment allowed. If the payment obligation is breached, the company may demand late-payment interest of 0,1% per day on the unpaid amount until payment. The parties waived claims under the former contract and acquired rights under the agreement. The company confirmed that it had no other claims against the association arising from the contract or the circumstances of this case. Each bears its own costs, and the parties have no mutual claims regarding their allocation. The company was awarded a refund of 22,50 euros, half the court fee paid, when the agreement enters into force. The court explained that breach of the terms could lead to compulsory enforcement and that the same dispute could not be brought again. Actual payment by the association or refund of the fee is not confirmed.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement and terminate proceedings. It records a debt of 85,25 euros* and payment of 82,25 euros* by 15 April 2016. Upon delay, late-payment interest is 0,1% per day on the unpaid amount until payment. Each bears its own costs; the company is refunded 22,50 euros in court fees when the agreement enters into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
II. Terminate proceedings on the claim by Katuse ABC Osaühing […]
First instance
Case 2-10-62881Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 11 korteriühistu · 80170839

Repairs and shared propertyRoof and atticContracts and servicesWorks contracts and designQuality and acceptance of worksPayment, advance payments and refundsDamage and insuranceDamage caused during repairsCause and proof of damageAmount of compensation

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought compensation for defective roof repairs; the contractor relied on having followed the agreed design. After an expert examination was ordered, the parties agreed on a smaller amount and instalments.

· Order approving a settlementViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-10-62881/47Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Puškini 11 and OÜ Lonstrong: settlement approved over damage following roof repairs

Order approving a settlement · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Puškini 11 · OÜ Lonstrong · 80170839 · 10632379

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant – KÜ Puškini 11; defendant – OÜ Lonstrong; parties’ legal and contractual representatives XX; expert XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought compensation for defective roof repairs; the contractor relied on having followed the agreed design. After an expert examination was ordered, the parties agreed on a smaller amount and instalments.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Puškini 11 brought a claim for 55 453,72 euros against OÜ Lonstrong following roof repairs. It relied on defects in the roofing and the damage they caused. The contractor initially disputed the claim, saying that the works followed the customer’s design documents, specifications and supervision instructions. During the proceedings, the parties raised the issue of an expert examination. The source records the contractor’s advance payment for it and receipt of an expert report. The order does not disclose the expert’s conclusions. The parties then agreed a settlement at the hearing instead of pursuing a decision on the merits. The defendant acknowledged the claim to the agreed extent and undertook to pay 31 955,82 euros. Of this, 19 955,82 euros was due by 15 November 2012, with the remaining 12 000 euros payable in twelve monthly instalments of 1 000 euros from December 2012 to November 2013. The association waived its remaining claims. The agreement resolved all disputes arising from the works contract of 9 April 2007. The court found no obstacle to approval, confirmed the agreed terms and terminated proceedings by its order of 12 October 2012. Each party bears its own costs; half the court fee, 2 236,91 euros, is to be returned to the association. The parties waived an appeal. This was an agreed resolution, rather than an independent judicial determination of the full amount of damage. The court did, however, examine the documentary evidence collected.

Outcome of this decision

Terminate proceedings and approve the settlement: OÜ Lonstrong is to pay the association 31 955,82 euros on the agreed schedule, and the association waives the remainder of its claims. All disputes under the contract of 09.04.2007 are resolved; each party bears its own costs. Reimburse the association 2 236,91 euros in court fees. The parties waived an appeal.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Terminate proceedings on the claim by KÜ Puškini 11 against OÜ Lonstrong for damages of 55 453.72 euros. […] 31 955 (thirty-one thousand nine hundred and fifty-five) euros and 82 cents. The claimant waives the remaining claims. […] 5. The parties waive the right to appeal the court ruling.
First instance