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 2-22-11087Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 18 korteriühistu · 80015336

Apartment association meetings and decisionsBudget, management plan and ratesArticles of association and amendmentsDocuments and informationReporting and review of expenditureRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairsBasement, stairwell and shared roomsParking and grounds

How it started · editorial summary

Two applicants XX sought to set aside two owners’ decision items concerning accounting review and a management plan.

· Final ruling on an application challenging general meeting decisionsViru Maakohus (Narva) · First instance · № 2-22-11087/67Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kivilinna tn 18: two decisions set aside after reconsideration

Final ruling on an application challenging general meeting decisions · Viru Maakohus (Narva) · First instance

Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 18 korteriühistu · 80015336

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: two applicants — XX; interested person — Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 18 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

Two applicants XX sought to set aside two owners’ decision items concerning accounting review and a management plan.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Two applicants XX challenged items 3 and 4 of Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 18 korteriühistu’s owners’ decision of 31 May 2022. Voting took place without a meeting. Item 3 concerned choosing an accounting organisation to check documents and authorising the board to choose a proposal; item 4 concerned the 2022 management plan. The applicants alleged that transferring control functions conflicted with the articles’ audit committee provision. For the plan, they cited missing mandatory information on common property condition, intended works, reserves and projected service consumption. They also objected to insufficiently justified parking and basement electrical system costs. The act presents these as applicants’ arguments. The first ruling of 9 January 2025 granted the application, but Tartu Ringkonnakohus set it aside and remitted the case. The grounds were breach of the right to be heard and partly insufficient reasoning; the appeal did not end the dispute by finally rejecting the applicants’ claims. On reconsideration the association admitted the claims in full. On 27 August 2025, the court therefore again granted the application and set aside specifically items 3 and 4. This result rests on admission, not a fresh detailed assessment of every objection to the management plan. Of the applicants’ 1150 euros in costs, the agreed 800 euros was allocated to the association. The applicants bear the other 350 euros. Appeal was available within 15 days after service.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the application and set aside items 3 and 4 of the decision of 31.05.2022. Allocate 800 euros in costs to the association, with the remaining 350 euros left to applicants.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Grant the application. […] 2. Set aside items 3 and 4 of Kivilinna tn 18 korteriühistu’s apartment owners’ decision of 31.05.2022.
First instance
Case 2-21-8475Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Viru tn 20 korteriühistu · 80352766

Damage and insuranceFireAmount of compensationRepairs and shared propertyBasement, stairwell and shared rooms

How it started · editorial summary

The apartment association Viru tn 20 sought restoration costs for a shared stairwell after a fire; Narva linn entered as legal successor to original participant XX.

· Ruling approving a settlement and terminating proceedingsViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-21-8475/27Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Apartment association Viru tn 20 and Narva linn agreed compensation for damage and costs

Ruling approving a settlement and terminating proceedings · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Viru tn 20 korteriühistu · Narva linn · Narva Linnavalitsuse Linnamajandusamet · 80352766 · · 75039729

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, Viru tn 20 korteriühistu; interested person — Narva linn through Narva Linnavalitsuse Linnamajandusamet; original interested person XX — replaced by a legal successor

How it started · editorial summary

The apartment association Viru tn 20 sought restoration costs for a shared stairwell after a fire; Narva linn entered as legal successor to original participant XX.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Viru tn 20 korteriühistu applied for reimbursement of costs of remedying the consequences of the fire of 19 August 2019. It referred to soot and water damage in the shared stairwell and expenses of 4 767,29 euros. The demand was originally against owner XX; the court later allowed substitution by Narva linn as universal legal successor. In this case the city acted through Narva Linnavalitsuse Linnamajandusamet, rather than as a separate municipal company. After court-allowed negotiation time, the participants submitted an agreement on 31 January 2024. The city undertook to pay the association 3 986,69 euros: 3 178,19 euros for damage and 808,50 euros in costs. Payment is due within three days after entry into force of the ruling approving the settlement and ending the case. Association costs above the agreed 808,50 euros and the city’s own costs remained with the respective participants. The court found the parties entitled to dispose of the dispute and the terms admissible and enforceable. It approved the agreement and terminated proceedings without separately deciding the basis of liability for the fire. The association was also released from reimbursing the state for earlier legal aid, with those costs left to the budget. The association is to receive 25 euros back, half the fee paid. Participants also shortened the appeal period against the ruling to three days after service.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the settlement: Narva linn through Linnamajandusamet pays the association 3 986,69 euros, including 3 178,19 euros for damage and 808,50 euros in costs, within three days after entry into force. Terminate the case. Leave other costs to participants; do not recover state legal aid costs from the association, leaving them to the budget. Refund the association a 25 euro fee.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Terminate proceedings in civil case No 2-21-8475.
First instance
Case 2-16-16599Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu · 80189721

Contracts and servicesTenancy and leaseHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesApartment association bills, payments and debtsBills and justification of chargesLimitation of claimsRepairs and shared propertyBasement, stairwell and shared roomsDebt claimsApartment association meetings and decisionsBudget, management plan and rates

How it started · editorial summary

The dispute concerned the basis for extra charges for the shared staircase and the floor area used to charge heating for non-residential premises.

Related prepared acts from this case are also shown.

· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-16-16599/17Read act

Separate act page

Stairwell and heating charges: judgment reversed and case remitted

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Osaühing Brainella · Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu · 10294480 · 80189721

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Defendant and appellant — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu; Claimant and respondent on appeal — Osaühing Brainella

How it started · editorial summary

The association appealed a declaration that the company owed no stairwell and heating debt. The appellate court reversed for inadequate examination of the basis and calculation and remitted the case.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Osaühing Brainella sought a declaration that it owed Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu nothing for use and heating of a separated part of a stairwell. Its claim was clarified to 1354.51 euros. It disputed a 15.98 euros monthly charge and additional floor area used for heating. The first-instance court granted the claim and the association appealed. Tartu Ringkonnakohus found the claim’s scope, the charges’ legal basis and their amount inadequately examined. Absence of a proved lease did not yet exclude a possible charge under owners’ resolutions on common-property use. Those resolutions should not simply have been disregarded. The amended claim’s limits and burden of proof also required clarification. The court rejected the association’s limitation objection to the declaration claim itself. Its position might have a different significance for its monetary claim, but neither debt nor its absence was finally established. The 16.01.2018 judgment was reversed and the case remitted to the same court, with costs to follow the rehearing’s result. Success on appeal was not an award or cancellation of the disputed sum.

Outcome of this decision

The association’s appeal was granted. Viru Maakohus’s judgment of 16.01.2018 was reversed and the case remitted. The basis and amount of charges require further examination; no final debt was established. The first-instance court will decide costs according to the further outcome.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Grant the appeal. […] Reverse Viru Maakohus’s judgment of 16 January 2018. Remit the case to Viru Maakohus for rehearing.
Appeal
· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-16599/37Read act

Separate act page

Charges for part of a stairwell and heating: the basis of charges and later reversal

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Osaühing Brainella · Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu · 10294480 · 80189721

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — Osaühing Brainella; Defendant — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

Osaühing Brainella challenged charges for using and heating part of a stairwell. The first-instance court declared only that no lease existed; the appellate court later granted all claims, reversing the refusals and the costs allocation.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Osaühing Brainella sought declarations against Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu that no lease existed and no payment was owed for part of a stairwell. It also sought heating calculations based only on 88.4 m² and a declaration that 285.63 euros was not owed for 28.02.2011–31.01.2016. Invoices included a monthly charge of 15.98 euros. The case was being reheard after reversal and remittal of an earlier judgment. The court found no evidence of a lease and granted that declaration. However, additional charges could arise from owners’ resolutions governing use of common property rather than a contract. Calling a charge rent did not change its legal basis. The company did not deny exclusive use of part of the stairwell. The relevant resolutions had not been invalidated, and the court found no grounds of nullity. It therefore refused a declaration of no payment duty. It also rejected the requested heating-area declaration and the related claim that 285.63 euros was not owed. This judgment did not itself award that sum for enforcement. The association must bear 25% of the company’s costs and the company 75% of the association’s costs, with amounts determined separately. Later, on 26 February 2021, Tartu Ringkonnakohus reversed the refusal of the remaining claims and the costs allocation, granting the claim in full. It held that the earlier tariffs applied only in the relevant financial years and that no basis for the additional charge after 2010 had been proved. It declared that the disputed charge was not payable, heating for 28.02.2011–31.01.2016 was payable on an area of 88.4 m², and the heating debt of 285.63 euros did not exist as at 31.01.2016. The association bears costs at both levels, with amounts to be fixed separately.

Outcome of this decision

Initially, the court declared that no lease existed and rejected the remaining claims; it did not award 285.63 euros, and costs were allocated 25%/75%. On 26 February 2021, Tartu Ringkonnakohus reversed the refusals and the costs allocation: it declared that the disputed charge was not payable, heating for 28.02.2011–31.01.2016 was payable on an area of 88.4 m², and the heating debt of 285.63 euros did not exist as at 31.01.2016. The association bears costs at both levels, with amounts to be fixed separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Declare that OÜ Brainella and Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu have no obligations arising from a rental or lease agreement.
First instance
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-16-16599/43Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Brainella: association decisions did not support additional stair-use and heating charges

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Osaühing Brainella · Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu · 10294480 · 80189721

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and appellant – Osaühing Brainella; Defendant – Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The dispute concerned the basis for extra charges for the shared staircase and the floor area used to charge heating for non-residential premises.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The circuit court granted Osaühing Brainella’s claim in full, declaring no obligation to pay the disputed rent and no additional heating debt. Osaühing Brainella sought a declaration that it did not have to pay rent or the disputed extra heating charge to the apartment association at A. Puškini tn 12. The company owned non-residential premises. The association charged for use of a separated stair section and calculated heating over a larger area. The company objected that no lease existed and heating should be charged for its premises’ area of 88,4 m². The association argued that the extra charges were based on general meeting decisions and use of the separated staircase expressed consent to the charge. On rehearing, Viru Maakohus confirmed there was no contract but found a payment duty based on meeting decisions. The company appealed dismissal of the rest of its demands. Tartu Ringkonnakohus agreed that an owners’ majority can in principle decide ordinary management of shared property. However, these particular decisions had been adopted with the 2004, 2005 and 2010 management plans and applied within those respective years. The association did not establish a basis for the disputed charges in later years. The circuit court granted the claim in full. It declared no lease relationship or rent obligation and that heating from 28 February 2011 to 31 January 2016 was payable on an area of 88,4 m². The company did not owe 285,63 euros in heating debt as at 31 January 2016. All litigation costs at both levels were imposed on the association, to be quantified by the county court after finality. No demand to demolish the partition was decided in this case.

Outcome of this decision

Grant Brainella’s claim in full: no lease relationship or rent payment duty exists; heating for the stated period is calculated on 88,4 m²; no debt of 285,63 euros is owed. The association bears costs at both levels, to be quantified separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2.1. Grant the claim by osaühing Brainella against Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu.
Appeal
Case 2-14-311Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 45a korteriühistu · 80250416

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesPayment accounting and set-offLate-payment interest and consequences of delayWater and sewerageCalculation of water chargesRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairsBasement, stairwell and shared rooms

How it started · editorial summary

The appeal court found sufficient evidence of the whole debt.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-311/25Read act

Separate act page

Proof of building charges and set-off for courtyard road expenses

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Puškini 45A Korteriühistu · Täisühing MAŠUK · 80250416 · 10444548

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Association — claimant; Täisühing MAŠUK — defendant, non-residential unit owner

How it started · editorial summary

Initially, part of the charges and the amount of the proposed set-off were not proved. The later appeal assessed the principal-debt evidence differently and awarded the full principal; the set-off was not reconsidered.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Puškini 45A Korteriühistu (now — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 45a korteriühistu). Puškini 45A Korteriühistu sought 419.83 euros in principal and 6.34 euros in late-payment interest from Täisühing MAŠUK. The company admitted 257.26 euros, disputed water circulation charges and other items, and sought to set off 3 466.54 euros spent on a courtyard road. The court found invoices insufficient to prove all costs and their allocation. It accepted that the road works were necessary and that set-off was possible in principle, but the amount was supported only by the defendant’s calculation rather than cost documents. Later, on 16 October 2015, Tartu Ringkonnakohus reversed refusal of the remaining 162.57 euros in principal: total principal awarded became 419.83 euros instead of 257.26 euros. Täisühing MAŠUK bears costs in both instances. Refusal of the set-off was not appealed or reviewed.

Outcome of this decision

Initially, the admitted principal of 257.26 euros was awarded, the remaining claim and set-off were refused, and each party bore its own costs. On 16 October 2015, Tartu Ringkonnakohus reversed refusal of the remaining 162.57 euros in principal: total principal awarded became 419.83 euros instead of 257.26 euros. Täisühing MAŠUK bears all costs in both instances. Refusal of the set-off was not appealed or reviewed; this change did not award additional late-payment interest.

A checked extract in this language is not yet available.

First instance
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-14-311/35Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Repair and water-circulation charges

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Puškini 45A Korteriühistu · Täisühing Mašuk · 80250416 · 10444548

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and appellant — Puškini 45A Korteriühistu; defendant — Täisühing Mašuk

How it started · editorial summary

The appeal court found sufficient evidence of the whole debt.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Puškini 45A Korteriühistu (now — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 45a korteriühistu). Puškini 45A Korteriühistu claimed management charges from Täisühing Mašuk. The company disputed water-circulation, stairwell-repair and paving charges, relying on a separate entrance, and sought to offset courtyard-road costs. The county court awarded the admitted 257.26 euros, refusing the remainder and the set-off. The association appealed the refusal of 162.57 euros and costs; refusal of set-off was not reviewed. The circuit court considered meeting decisions, repair documents and the summer water-circulation methodology sufficient. A separate entrance did not remove common-cost obligations. The appeal succeeded: the total debt is 419.83 euros, including the earlier award. Costs in both instances were imposed on the company without fixing their monetary amount in this judgment.

Outcome of this decision

Appeal allowed; total debt 419.83 euros and costs in both instances borne by the company.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. Allow the appeal.
Appeal
Case 2-08-85420Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 17 korteriühistu · 80170377

Repairs and shared propertyBasement, stairwell and shared roomsAccess to premises for worksApartment association meetings and decisions

How it started · editorial summary

OÜ Elpaste and the apartment association Tallinna 17 agreed on free use of the basement and the association’s access to building systems. The court approved the agreement and terminated proceedings.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-08-85420/81Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Basement dispute ended by agreement on use and access to building systems

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

OÜ Elpaste · KÜ Tallinna 17 · ·

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant OÜ Elpaste – user of the premises challenging the decisions.; Defendant KÜ Tallinna 17 – agreed on use and access.

How it started · editorial summary

OÜ Elpaste and the apartment association Tallinna 17 agreed on free use of the basement and the association’s access to building systems. The court approved the agreement and terminated proceedings.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The company Elpaste challenged an owners’ meeting decision. The case description dates it to 28 December 2009, while the settlement terms refer to a general meeting decision of 18 October 2009 transferring possession and use of shared basement rooms used by the company to the association. Under the agreement, the defendant admitted the claim concerning the association’s meeting decision, while the claimant waived its claim concerning the owners’ decision. The parties agreed to restore the position before the decisions: the association does not charge for use of the basement and acknowledges that the company has no debt relating to use of its premises and the basement. The company undertook, within a month after the ruling becomes final, to dismantle a brick partition and provide permanent technical access to building systems in the basement and shop. The association installs shut-off fittings and taps at its own expense. Access is to be provided during the business’s working hours and at any time in an emergency or to prevent one. The court considered the agreement lawful, approved it and terminated proceedings. Each party bears its own costs. The claimant was awarded a refund of half the court fee, 159,78 euros. The ruling does not establish completion of the building works or the refund.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreed terms on basement use, absence of debt and technical access. Terminate proceedings, leave each party to bear its own costs and refund the claimant 159,78 euros in court fees from the state budget.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
4. Allocate litigation costs in accordance with the settlement. […]
First instance
Case 2-14-57931Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 45a korteriühistu · 80250416

Damage and insuranceDamage caused during repairsCause and proof of damageAmount of compensationRepairs and shared propertyBasement, stairwell and shared rooms

How it started · editorial summary

Tartu Ringkonnakohus set aside the judgment in favour of Täisühing Mašuk and refused to award 877,42 euros in damages against the apartment association Puškini 45A.

· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-14-57931/24Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Appeal court dismissed claim over a sunken floor: link to association’s works unproven

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Täisühing Mašuk · Puškini 45A Korteriühistu · 10444548 · 80250416

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant Täisühing Mašuk — owner of non-residential premises.; Defendant and appellant Puškini 45A Korteriühistu — challenged the award.

How it started · editorial summary

Tartu Ringkonnakohus set aside the judgment in favour of Täisühing Mašuk and refused to award 877,42 euros in damages against the apartment association Puškini 45A.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The company Mašuk linked subsidence of a corridor floor in its non-residential premises to repairs to the strip around the building commissioned by the association. It alleged that a hole had been dug during the works and filled without proper compaction. The company sought 577,42 euros to restore the floor and 300 euros in expert examination costs. The association denied causing damage and pointed to a lack of evidence. On 23 January 2015, the first-instance court awarded 577,42 euros for repairs and 300 euros for the expert examination as costs. It regarded the floor as common property for whose upkeep the association was responsible regardless of the cause of subsidence. The association appealed, challenging that conclusion and the assessment of evidence. The appeal court found that the corridor formed part of the claimant’s premises and was used only by it. The finding that it was common property was not based on circumstances pleaded and discussed. The court saw no grounds to make the association bear the maintenance costs of this part of the premises. The court also found no proven link between the subsidence and the works commissioned by the association. The expert report pointed to defects in alteration of the entrance and corridor themselves: ground compaction, reinforcement, connection to the building and insulation. There was no evidence that the floor had subsided because of the repairs to the surrounding strip. As the act causing damage was unproven, the court did not assess unlawfulness and fault separately. The appeal was allowed: the earlier judgment was set aside and the claim dismissed in full. Costs at both instances were allocated to Mašuk; the association was awarded 460 euros, including 175 euros in state fees and 285 euros in representation costs.

Outcome of this decision

Set aside the Viru Maakohus judgment of 23 January 2015, allow the association’s appeal and dismiss Mašuk’s claim for 877,42 euros. Order Mašuk to pay the association 460 euros in costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Allow the appeal.
Appeal