Narva apartment associations Court decisions

The employee challenged the June notices but left unchallenged the March notice that had ended the contract earlier.

The court left XX’s claim against KÜ Kangelaste pr 19 concerning termination of an employment contract and compensation without examination. It concluded that the challenged June notices could not change the employee’s position: the contract had already ended under an earlier notice not challenged in this case. XX sought a declaration that the June 2017 termination notices were void, meaning they had no legal effect, followed by termination through the court and compensation. The association opposed the claim and produced another notice drawn up in March 2017. That notice terminated the contract before the June notices because of work reorganisation and disappearance of the position. The court invited the employee to explain how the June notices infringed rights if employment had already ended. XX replied that clarifying the grounds of dismissal was precisely why the claim was brought and maintained the original requests. XX also considered one June notice to concern the same contract despite bearing a different number. The court proceeded from the contract having ended under the March notice before the later June notices. The employee neither challenged the March notice nor explained why it had not ended employment. The court considered that even declaring the later notices void would not restore the contract or allow it to be terminated again through the court with the compensation sought. It therefore left the claim without examination. This ruling does not determine the merits of the March dismissal itself. Costs were allocated to the claimant, with the amount determined separately after entry into force. The court also explained the general possibility of applying again after a claim is left without examination.

Leave XX’s claim for a declaration of nullity of termination notices and compensation without examination. The claimant bears costs; their amount will be determined separately after entry into force.

The court classified the relationship between the manager and the association as a mandate agreement and left the request to set aside the board decision without examination.

Tartu Ringkonnakohus upheld dismissal of XX’s employment and monetary claims against the apartment association RAHU 16D, changing the reasons. However, it replaced dismissal on the merits of the request to set aside a board decision with a decision leaving that part of the claim without examination. Formally, the appeal was dismissed. The claimant acted as building manager and considered the relationship employment. The claimant challenged termination, seeking reinstatement and payments. The appeal sought 128 euros in unpaid remuneration, 512 euros for failure to observe the notice period and 2041 euros for enforced absence. The association argued that the parties had entered into a management services agreement, not an employment contract. The court examined the actual working conditions. The manager independently chose how, when and where to perform tasks and organised repairs, contracts and reporting. The agreement contained no terms on working hours, leave or daily supervision. The court therefore classified it as a mandate agreement: independent performance of tasks in the association’s interests. Neither a tax reporting entry nor comments from the board in themselves turned the relationship into employment. The court found termination of the indefinite mandate agreement permissible and saw no basis for applying remedies for unlawful dismissal of an employee. The separate claim for 128 euros for work already performed was also unsubstantiated. The court did not determine the challenge to the board decision on the merits: the manager was not entitled to bring that claim in the capacity chosen. That part of the earlier judgment was set aside and replaced with a procedural decision. The association’s request to obtain additional information was also refused. Costs at both instances were allocated to the claimant; the county court will determine their amount separately. Actual performance has not been established.

Uphold dismissal of the employment and monetary claims with amended reasons. Set aside the earlier judgment regarding the board decision and leave that part of the claim without examination. Dismiss the appeal; XX bears costs at both instances, with the amount to be determined separately.

The remitted proceedings concerned compensation, rather than reconsideration of whether the dismissal was lawful.

Korteriühistu Tallinna 32 (now — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu). On remittal, XX sought compensation from Korteriühistu Tallinna 32 for enforced absence from work. Unlawful dismissal and reinstatement had already been resolved. The court accepted the loss of earnings but limited compensation to one month’s average earnings on grounds of good faith and proportionality. Later, on 8 July 2016, Tartu Ringkonnakohus increased compensation while leaving the allocation of costs unchanged. Applying the historical version of employment law, the appellate court emphasised immediate compliance with reinstatement and reasonable steps to mitigate loss.

The claim was initially granted in part, awarding compensation equal to one month’s average earnings, with each party bearing its own costs. On 8 July 2016, Tartu Ringkonnakohus set the judgment aside only as to the amount of compensation and increased it. Each party continued to bear its own first-instance and appeal costs.

The court increased compensation while maintaining a reduction for the duty to mitigate loss.

Korteriühistu Tallinna 32 (now — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu). Employee XX appealed the amount of compensation payable by Korteriühistu Tallinna 32 for enforced absence from work. Unlawful dismissal and reinstatement had already been established; this decision concerned only the amount of compensation. The court confirmed that compensation could be reduced by reference to the duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate loss. However, the first-instance court had not adequately justified limiting compensation to one month’s pay. The compensation was increased; the reasoning used eight months’ average earnings. The claim for the whole period sought was otherwise refused. The earlier reinstatement judgment was immediately enforceable: work should have resumed on the day after the first-instance judgment, rather than after the cassation stage ended. This affected the compensable period. The court applied employment legislation in force before 1 July 2009. Each party bears its costs in both instances; actual payment was not established.

Compensation was increased; the claim and appeal were allowed in part, with each party bearing its costs.