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 2-24-15880Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 17 korteriühistu · 80170377

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesObligations of multiple ownersHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairs

How it started · editorial summary

The court checked the basis of charges and limited the recovery period.

· Court orderViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-24-15880/39Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Proof of charges and joint and several recovery

Court order · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 17 korteriühistu · 80170377

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 17 korteriühistu; three persons concerned XX — jointly and severally liable owners; association representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

The court checked the basis of charges and limited the recovery period.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 17 korteriühistu sought joint and several payment from three persons XX for services, repair-fund contributions, gas-equipment maintenance and heating. This is one common sum, not separate full recovery from each. The court checked the claim despite incomplete responses. Meeting decisions, a management plan, contracts and supplier invoices supported the charges; bills sent to the owner alone are insufficient. Payments were credited. Debt for 1 June 2023–30 April 2025 was proved; debt from May 2025 was not awarded. The application was allowed in part. Of 850 euros sought for legal costs, 300 euros were accepted for proved representative activities; with a 50-euro fee, 350 euros were awarded jointly and severally. Duplicate documents were removed from the file.

Outcome of this decision

Proven debt and 350 euros in costs awarded jointly and severally; later debt not awarded.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Allow the application of Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 17 korteriühistu in part.
First instance
Case 2-24-104626Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12a korteriühistu · 80137948

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesLate-payment interest and consequences of delayHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairs

How it started · editorial summary

After unsuccessful service in payment-order proceedings, the association submitted an amended application and additional evidence of charges; owner XX did not respond.

· Order on an application to recover debtViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-24-104626/17Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kangelaste prospekt 12a: evidence supporting management charges

Order on an application to recover debt · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12a korteriühistu · 80137948

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12a korteriühistu; Person concerned, owner — XX

How it started · editorial summary

After unsuccessful service in payment-order proceedings, the association submitted an amended application and additional evidence of charges; owner XX did not respond.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12a korteriühistu sought management-cost arrears from owner XX for the claimed period. Payment-order proceedings ended because the payment proposal could not be served, and the case went to Viru Maakohus. Documents were later served by public notice through the official publication; the owner filed no response or objections. The court required further evidence for each charge and clarification of repair-fund payments. The association supplied additional reasons, invoices, monthly calculations, its articles, meeting records, servicing contracts and heat-cost documents. The ruling therefore did not merely rely on the absence of a response. The court connected liability to membership, the allocation rules and meeting decisions. It accepted charges for servicing, heating and water circulation, a designated levy and gas-equipment servicing as proved and established the principal debt. On 21 March 2025, it awarded principal, accrued late-payment interest and further statutory late-payment interest until payment. XX was also ordered to pay 571.50 euros in costs, covering state fees, legal work and evidence, with late-payment interest from entry into force. The order requires service by public notice, deemed effective 15 days after publication of the extract. Actual subsequent service and the outcome of any appeal are not established by the text.

Outcome of this decision

Award principal, accrued and further statutory late-payment interest until payment against XX, plus 571.50 euros in costs with late-payment interest from entry into force. Direct service of the order by public notice.

A checked extract in this language is not yet available.

First instance
Case 2-22-17238Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 4 korteriühistu · 80339391

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsPayment accounting and set-offLate-payment interest and consequences of delayWater and sewerageCalculation of water chargesRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairs

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought management and utility debts with late-payment interest. XX disputed the calculation and crediting of payments. The court granted only part of the claim, excluding unproved water charges.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-17238/22Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Partial debt award: accounting for payments and proving water charges

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 4 korteriühistu · 80339391

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 4 korteriühistu; Person concerned — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought management and utility debts with late-payment interest. XX disputed the calculation and crediting of payments. The court granted only part of the claim, excluding unproved water charges.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 4 korteriühistu sought unpaid management and utility charges and late-payment interest. XX challenged the calculation, alleged that payments had not been credited, and refused some maintenance and repair-fund charges without explanations of tariffs and evidence of work. The association repeatedly reduced its claim and acknowledged that some earlier payments had not been accounted for. The court examined invoices, bank records, tariff resolutions and supplier calculations. It rejected unilateral exclusion of maintenance and repair-fund contributions: they concerned the upkeep of the shared building, rather than only services actually used in a particular month. A separate entrance did not itself remove liability for common expenses. Differences between individual invoices were not considered sufficient proof of forgery. However, the court found the build-up of debt and allocation of payments difficult to follow. Part of the claim was proved, but some water charges lacked the necessary price information, supplier invoices, readings and calculation. The court excluded that part and granted the application in part. It awarded proved principal, accrued late-payment interest and continuing statutory late-payment interest from 17 November 2022 until the awarded principal is paid. Procedural costs were divided equally, with the amount to be determined separately.

Outcome of this decision

The application was granted in part: proved principal and late-payment interest were awarded, including continuing late-payment interest from 17 November 2022 until the awarded principal is paid. Unproved water charges were excluded. Each participant must bear 50% of the other’s costs; their amount will be determined separately after the order becomes final.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Grant the application of Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 4 korteriühistu in part.
First instance
Case 2-22-139489Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 10b korteriühistu · 80145534

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesLate-payment interest and consequences of delayHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesWater and sewerageCalculation of water chargesRepairs and shared propertyFaçade, windows and balconiesOrganisation and funding of repairs

How it started · editorial summary

The court required evidence of tariffs and services despite the absence of a response.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-139489/31Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Checking the basis of management charges

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 10b korteriühistu · 80145534

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 10b korteriühistu; person concerned XX — debtor

How it started · editorial summary

The court required evidence of tariffs and services despite the absence of a response.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 10b korteriühistu claimed management-charge arrears and accrued late-payment interest from XX. After unsuccessful service of a payment proposal, the case was transferred to the county court. The court deemed documents served through the letterbox once procedural conditions were satisfied; XX did not respond. The court requested further evidence of the basis of the charges. The charter, meeting decisions on tariffs and a facade fund, supplier contracts and heating and water-circulation calculations proved the obligation and debt. The application was allowed. Principal, accrued late-payment interest, 470 euros in costs and statutory late-payment interest on costs from entry into force of the decision fixing them were awarded. Continuing late-payment interest on principal was not awarded in the operative part. Subsequent performance is not established.

Outcome of this decision

Application allowed; debt, accrued late-payment interest and 470 euros in costs with statutory late-payment interest on costs awarded.

A checked extract in this language is not yet available.

First instance
Case 2-21-6288Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12 korteriühistu · 80175498

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeVoting and representationBudget, management plan and ratesDocuments and informationInspection and copies of documentsReporting and review of expenditureApartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the boardRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairsParking and groundsConstruction of parking facilities

How it started · editorial summary

Nine applicants XX challenged the apartment association Kangelaste prospekt 12 written decisions for 2021; the association denied breaches.

· Ruling leaving an application unexaminedViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-21-6288/16Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Dispute over Kangelaste prospekt 12 decisions left unexamined after renewed confirmation

Ruling leaving an application unexamined · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12 korteriühistu · 80175498

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicants XX – nine individuals; interested person – Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

Nine applicants XX challenged the apartment association Kangelaste prospekt 12 written decisions for 2021; the association denied breaches.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Nine applicants XX sought a declaration that the Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12 korteriühistu decisions of 22 February 2021 were void, meaning without legal effect from adoption, or alternatively their invalidation. The written vote concerned accounts, management and repair plans, video surveillance, parking and board elections. The applicants relied on one participant not receiving drafts, deficiencies in financial documents and breaches of candidate nomination procedure. The association objected that drafts were sent, papers were made available for inspection, accounts had been checked and alternative candidates received insufficient votes. The court did not decide these disagreements on their merits. Register data showed that the general meeting of 15 March 2022 had confirmed the 2021 decisions. The court found no information that the new decision had been challenged. It asked the applicants to explain their continuing personal legal interest in review of the former vote and substantiate invalidation. No response arrived in time. The court considered that the old decisions’ legal effects could no longer be removed by this application: the same provisions applied under the new, unchallenged decision. The applicants explained no other independent interest. The application was therefore left unexamined. This is not a judicial finding that the original procedure was lawful or a rejection of nullity arguments on their merits. Each participant bears its own costs, which the court did not quantify. The court clarified the challenged decisions’ date from the minutes as 22 February, although applicants initially gave 14 February 2021.

Outcome of this decision

Leave the application to declare the decisions of 22.02.2021 void or invalidate them unexamined. Leave costs with the participants who incurred them, without quantification.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. The participants shall bear their own litigation costs. Given this allocation, the court will not quantify them.
First instance
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.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-11550/8Read actFirst instance

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.
First instance
Case 2-20-11613Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, […] korteriühistu

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeBudget, management plan and ratesApartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the boardRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairs

How it started · editorial summary

The court examined resolutions of a repeat meeting and a later written vote. The appeal court retained the voidness of the management-plan and later election resolutions, removing only a reference to a point on which no decision had been made.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-20-11613/46Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Board replacement and a management plan: different consequences of notice defects

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, […] korteriühistu ·

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: First applicant — XX; Other applicants, elected board members — XX; Person concerned — Narva linn, […] korteriühistu; Person concerned, former board member — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The court examined resolutions of a repeat meeting and a later written vote. The appeal court retained the voidness of the management-plan and later election resolutions, removing only a reference to a point on which no decision had been made.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Two applications concerning an association whose name and code are redacted in the source were examined together. The first applicant, XX, challenged resolutions of a repeat meeting on 03.08.2020 convened by an initiative group after the board refused. Other applicants, XX, challenged written resolutions of 24.02.2021 on another board replacement organised by the former board. The court recognised the initiative group’s right to convene: enough members had submitted a reasoned request and the board had refused. The repeat meeting procedure was regarded as compliant. However, management-plan materials had not been made available in advance and the notice did not explain access to them. Points 3–6 concerning the chair’s remuneration, improvements, repairs and changes to the financial plan were therefore declared void. Challenges to points 1, 7, 8 and 9, including removal of the former board and election of its replacement, were dismissed. The written resolutions of 24.02.2021 were declared void because they were organised by the removed board, and no request to the valid new board had been proved. Each participant was left to bear their own costs. On 28 October 2022, Tartu Ringkonnakohus retained the substantive result and first-instance costs allocation. It removed only the reference to point 2 of the 3 August 2020 meeting from the dismissal, because no resolution had been adopted on that point. Appeal costs were placed on the appellants, including reimbursement of the other group’s costs.

Outcome of this decision

Points 3–6 of the 3 August 2020 resolutions and the 24 February 2021 resolutions were declared void; challenges to points 1, 7, 8 and 9 were dismissed. On 28 October 2022, Tartu Ringkonnakohus removed only the reference to point 2, on which no decision had been made. First-instance costs remain each participant’s own; appeal costs fall on the appellants.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Leave each participant to bear their own procedural costs.
First instance
Case 2-20-7413Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu · 80121083

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesObligations of multiple ownersRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairs

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought charges jointly and severally from two owners. Only the proved repair-fund contributions were awarded. The appeal court later increased that part to include December 2020; the remaining dismissal for lack of proof was retained.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-20-7413/45Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Co-owners’ debt: only repair-fund contributions were proved

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu · 80121083

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu; Person concerned I, owner — XX; Person concerned II, owner — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought charges jointly and severally from two owners. Only the proved repair-fund contributions were awarded. The appeal court later increased that part to include December 2020; the remaining dismissal for lack of proof was retained.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu sought debt jointly and severally from two owners, XX. They challenged the amount charged, the floor area used and receipt of invoices. One owner also relied on the condition of a partition wall and alleged failures by the association. The court repeatedly asked the association to explain its calculation and supply supplier records. The first-instance court rejected the contention that invoices had not been received and did not treat the condition of the premises as an independent basis for avoiding every charge in this dispute. However, recovery still required proof of costs and their allocation. The association’s own invoices and accounting table did not fully establish these matters. Supplier-liability records and the basis of many tariffs were not provided. The first-instance court found only the repair-fund contributions proved and awarded them jointly and severally. The remaining claims were rejected for lack of proof. On 4 February 2022, Tartu Ringkonnakohus increased the repair-fund award to include December 2020, so that part covers the whole of 2020. The remaining dismissal was retained. Each participant bears their own costs in both instances.

Outcome of this decision

The joint and several award was limited to proved repair-fund contributions. On 4 February 2022, Tartu Ringkonnakohus increased it to include December 2020 and retained dismissal of the other claims for lack of proof. Each participant bears their own costs in both instances.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Grant the application of Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu in part. […] Dismiss the remainder of the application for lack of proof.
First instance
Case 2-16-17050Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 19 korteriühistu · 80054978

Apartment association board and managementLiability of governing bodiesRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairsDamage and insuranceCause and proof of damage

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought the cost of cable relocation from a former board member as damages, citing missing approvals. On rehearing, the court refused the claim, considering necessity and benefit to the building separately from formal decision-making.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-17050/69Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

A board member’s liability for relocation of electrical cables

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 19 korteriühistu · 80054978

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 19 korteriühistu; Defendant, former board member — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought the cost of cable relocation from a former board member as damages, citing missing approvals. On rehearing, the court refused the claim, considering necessity and benefit to the building separately from formal decision-making.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 19 korteriühistu sought 7200 euros from former board member XX for moving electrical cables from the facade to the basement. It alleged that the works were not properly approved and served only certain owners. XX relied on unsafe old cables and the interests of the whole building. An earlier award had been reversed on appeal and the case remitted. The court examined witnesses, the cables’ condition, photographs and connection records. It found the need for works due to unsafe wiring proved and noted the benefit to the shared building’s safety. Separate connections to premises did not themselves exclude common interests. However, the court also said that time between ordering and performance allowed the matter to be put to a general meeting, and board discussion did not replace required documentation. The court considered the existence of damage and benefit from the works separately. It did not automatically equate all expenditure with proved loss merely because decision-making was inadequately documented. The claim was dismissed. Costs were imposed on the association, with 1995 euros awarded to XX for legal assistance under the operative part. Actual payment of awarded costs was not established.

Outcome of this decision

The association’s 7200 euros damages claim was dismissed. It bears costs and must pay XX 1995 euros under the operative part. This does not mean the court approved the formal handling of every decision.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Dismiss the claim. […] Order the claimant to bear the procedural costs.
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.

Related prepared acts from this case are also shown.

· 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.

Related prepared acts from this case are also shown.

· 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