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 2-24-11592Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 56 korteriühistu · 80121574

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesApartment association board and managementAuthority and representationContracts and servicesBuilding servicesLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

How it started · editorial summary

Principal and late-payment interest were paid during the case. Disputes remained over costs, representation and XX’s additional requests.

· Order on a debt claim and the owner’s additional applicationViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-24-11592/15Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 56: payment during proceedings, costs and representation

Order on a debt claim and the owner’s additional application · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 56 korteriühistu · 80121574

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 56 korteriühistu; Person concerned, owner and addressee of the monetary claim — XX; Association’s representative — XX; Board member whose authority was challenged — XX

How it started · editorial summary

Principal and late-payment interest were paid during the case. Disputes remained over costs, representation and XX’s additional requests.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 56 korteriühistu sought management-cost arrears from XX. The amended claim covered principal and accrued late-payment interest. The association submitted calculations, supplier and participant invoices and resolutions setting charges. During proceedings, XX acknowledged and paid these sums but disputed liability for the association’s legal costs. XX also challenged the representative’s authority, requested recalculation of gas charges and correction of information in association documents. The court checked the register entry authorising a board member to act alone and another pending case concerning meeting resolutions. In this case, it accepted the register as the basis for representation. The entry had not changed, and litigation over the board member’s removal remained pending. The court found the calculation justified and noted that liability and the acknowledged amounts were no longer disputed. It nevertheless did not award the principal and accrued late-payment interest again, because they had been paid during proceedings. The operative part allows the application but expressly makes no monetary award for those sums because of performance. Requests to recalculate gas and correct document information were dismissed as outside the case’s subject. XX bears the association’s and XX’s own costs. Their amount is left for a separate order after entry into force. The association’s requested figure is not an amount already awarded; a new debt mentioned in its submissions was not awarded by this operative part either.

Outcome of this decision

Allow the association’s application but make no repeat award of principal and accrued late-payment interest because they were paid during proceedings. Dismiss XX’s requests for gas recalculation and correction of association documents as outside the case. Order XX to bear association costs, to be quantified separately.

A checked extract in this language is not yet available.

First instance
Case 2-24-101553Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Energia tn 3 korteriühistu · 80189425

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesPayment accounting and set-offLimitation of claimsApartment association meetings and decisionsBudget, management plan and ratesApartment association board and managementAuthority and representationLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

How it started · editorial summary

XX challenged the service rate for non-residential premises and relied on limitation; the association sought payment under general-meeting resolutions.

· Court order in non-contentious proceedingsViru Maakohus Jõhvi kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-24-101553/29Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Energia tn 3: rates, allocation of payments and limitation

Court order in non-contentious proceedings · Viru Maakohus Jõhvi kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Energia tn 3 korteriühistu · 80189425

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, Energia tn 3 korteriühistu; Person concerned, owner — XX

How it started · editorial summary

XX challenged the service rate for non-residential premises and relied on limitation; the association sought payment under general-meeting resolutions.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Energia tn 3 korteriühistu sought management-cost arrears and late-payment interest from XX concerning non-residential premises. The association relied on general-meeting resolutions and argued that partial payment restarted limitation for the old debt. XX challenged the rate, relied on an individual arrangement with the board and pleaded partial limitation. The court found that ordinary payments specified particular months, so they could not arbitrarily be allocated to older debt. A separate payment marked “debt” discharged earlier obligations but did not acknowledge the whole balance. Unpaid 2020 charges were time-barred when proceedings began in January 2024. Other rate objections failed on the meeting records. The board could not set an individual rate contrary to the general resolution. The order cited the appellate court’s view that rates differing solely by natural- or legal-person status could make a resolution void. This operative part did not itself annul the rate resolution. The application was partly allowed: principal, accrued and further statutory late-payment interest until payment were awarded. XX bears 73% of association costs; clause5 awards 1283.12* euros. Statutory late-payment interest on costs also runs from entry into force. Actual payment is not established.

Outcome of this decision

Allow the application in part: award principal, accrued and further statutory late-payment interest until payment. XX bears 73% of association costs; clause5 awards 1283.12* euros. Statutory late-payment interest on costs also runs from entry into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Allow the application of Narva linn, Energia tn 3 korteriühistu in part.
First instance
Case 2-22-670Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Soldina tn 4 korteriühistu · 80175156

Apartment association meetings and decisionsVoting and representationQuorum and repeat meetingsArticles of association and amendmentsApartment association board and managementAuthority and representationParking and groundsConstruction of parking facilities

How it started · editorial summary

Applicant XX challenged written decisions for lack of unanimity and board authority; the association agreed with the application.

· Ruling on an application challenging general meeting decisionsViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-22-670/11Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Soldina tn 4: request to declare written decisions void rejected

Ruling on an application challenging general meeting decisions · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Soldina tn 4 korteriühistu · 80175156

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — XX; interested person — Narva linn, Soldina tn 4 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

Applicant XX challenged written decisions for lack of unanimity and board authority; the association agreed with the application.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Applicant XX sought a finding that the association’s decisions had no legal effect from adoption, or were void. The decisions of Narva linn, Soldina tn 4 korteriühistu were recorded on 6 January 2022 following written voting in December 2021. The questions concerned parking, accounting review and lighting. The applicant invoked the articles’ unanimity requirement because not all owners voted, and alleged that the board’s term had expired before it organised the vote. The association agreed that the application should succeed. After doubts about the first representative’s authority, the court obtained the current registered representative’s view, which also accepted the arguments. However, the court stated that it was not bound by participants’ legal assessments in such an application and had to examine nullity independently. On 31 January 2025 it rejected the application. It distinguished nullity from setting aside: in its assessment, breach of voting-number rules did not itself establish the alleged nullity ground. The applicant had not sought to set the decisions aside. The court also found void the articles’ clause allowing written decisions only if all members voted, and applied statutory quorum and majority rules. It considered participation by 60 votes sufficient. It likewise regarded the board term argument as a possible ground for setting aside, rather than nullity; it examined no other annulment grounds. It did not review lawfulness on other grounds. Costs were allocated to the applicant, but no reimbursement was awarded to the association: no proven costs arose and a statutory representative submitted its position. Appeal was available within 15 days from the day following receipt.

Outcome of this decision

Reject the application to declare the decisions of 06.01.2022 void. Allocate costs to the applicant, but there are no reimbursable association costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Reject XX’s application to declare Narva linn, Soldina tn 4 korteriühistu’s general meeting decision of 06 January 2022 void.
First instance
Case 2-20-16862Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 19 korteriühistu · 80228194

Parking and groundsConstruction of parking facilitiesContracts and servicesPayment, advance payments and refundsDamage and insuranceCause and proof of damageAmount of compensationApartment association board and managementAuthority and representation

How it started · editorial summary

The association brought a joint and several demand against the management company and defendant XX to reimburse an advance paid to the contractor for an unfinished car park.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus Jõhvi kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-20-16862/58Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

P. Kerese tn 19: 3 000 euro parking claim against management company and individual dismissed

Judgment · Viru Maakohus Jõhvi kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 19 korteriühistu · Elamu Teenused Grupp OÜ · 80228194 · 11688471

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 19 korteriühistu (80228194); defendant — Elamu Teenused Grupp OÜ (11688471); defendant XX — individual and management company board member; claimant’s representative XX; defendants’ representative XX; association board member XX — representative under the works contract

How it started · editorial summary

The association brought a joint and several demand against the management company and defendant XX to reimburse an advance paid to the contractor for an unfinished car park.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 19 sought 3 000 euros jointly and severally from Elamu Teenused Grupp OÜ and defendant XX: one common amount recoverable from either defendant. The dispute concerned an advance to a contractor for a car park. The association alleged that XX exceeded authority, transferred funds without a proper decision and helped change the design. The works were unfinished and the right to use city land later ended. The defendants replied that the works contract was signed by a board member authorised to represent the association alone. The advance arose under a valid contract and the transfer followed that member’s instruction; consequences of an unfinished project could not be attributed to the payment itself. The court found that XX did lack authority to represent the association in concluding the transaction. But the additional signature did not change the validity of the contract signed by an authorised board member. The association already owed the advance under it. Lack of separate approval by every board member did not turn the transfer into damage caused by the defendant. The court examined liability grounds, including possible breach of the management contract, and found absence of causation decisive: the association had to pay the invoice even without XX’s disputed transfer. Even on a different view, there was no basis to regard non-completion of the car park as a foreseeable result of that act. Design approval problems and the end of land use were not attributed to these defendants either. The judgment of 16 September 2024 dismissed the claim in full and allocated costs to the association, with the amount determined separately. The court acknowledged loss of the advance because the car park was unfinished, but did not find the necessary conditions for liability of these particular defendants; it did not deny the association’s loss.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss the association’s joint and several demand for 3 000 euros against Elamu Teenused Grupp OÜ and defendant XX. Allocate all costs to the association; determine their amount in a separate act after entry into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. The claimant shall bear all procedural costs.
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 2-16-123Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 19 korteriühistu · 80021192

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeQuorum and repeat meetingsApartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the boardAuthority and representation

How it started · editorial summary

The court deemed the convening demand received once there was a reasonable opportunity to read it; the board missed the deadline in the articles and the members’ meeting was permissible.

Related prepared acts from this case are also shown.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-123/38Read act

Separate act page

Members convening a meeting after the board missed its deadline

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Kangelaste pr 19 korteriühistu · 80021192

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: XX — claimant and former board member; Association — defendant

How it started · editorial summary

The members’ right to convene the meeting depended on receipt of their request and expiry of the board’s deadline under the articles.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Kangelaste pr 19 korteriühistu (now — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 19 korteriühistu). XX sought to invalidate the decisions of the repeat general meeting of Kangelaste pr 19 korteriühistu on 21 December 2015 concerning replacement of the board and election of the audit committee. The court accepted delivery of the request through the mailbox because the recipient had a reasonable opportunity to read it. The board failed to convene the meeting within the two weeks set by the articles. The members could therefore convene it themselves and hold a repeat meeting after a lack of quorum.

Outcome of this decision

The claim was dismissed. The court found no defect in convening the meeting that would render its decisions void. XX bears the costs and was ordered to reimburse the association 770 euros.

A checked extract in this language is not yet available.

First instance
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-16-123/49Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Kangelaste pr 19: meeting decision upheld and challenge dismissed

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ Kangelaste pr 19 · 80021192

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and appellant – XX; Defendant – KÜ Kangelaste pr 19

How it started · editorial summary

The court deemed the convening demand received once there was a reasonable opportunity to read it; the board missed the deadline in the articles and the members’ meeting was permissible.

The dispute and the court’s decision

XX challenged the apartment association Kangelaste pr 19’s general meeting decision of 21 December 2015, which expressed no confidence in the former board and elected a new board and audit committee. The claimant argued that members had no right to convene the meeting themselves because the board had already held a meeting on 8 December. The court dismissed the claim and the appeal was dismissed. The key issue was when the members’ demand to convene a meeting was received. The court found that it was placed in board member XX’s mailbox on 15 November 2015, giving a reasonable opportunity to read it. Receipt of a legally significant communication did not require proof that it was actually read. The two-week period under the articles therefore expired on 29 November, and the 8 December meeting was late. The members acquired the right to convene a meeting on 9 December and a repeat meeting on 21 December. No audit committee had previously been elected. If the claimant asserted otherwise, it was for the claimant to prove this; the court did not have to gather such information on its own initiative. The court found no grounds for treating the decision as contrary to good morals or void for other reasons, meaning without legal effect from adoption. The objection to the new board member’s authority was rejected: the member had been elected at the challenged meeting, and the board’s register entry does not itself create that authority. Following examination, the meeting decision was found valid. The first-instance costs award of 770 euros was upheld; a further 280 euros for the appeal was awarded to the association against XX.

Outcome of this decision

Leave the judgment of 27 July 2016 unchanged and dismiss the appeal. XX bears appeal costs; the association is awarded 280 euros. The meeting decision of 21 December 2015 was not set aside.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Dismiss the appeal.
Appeal
Case 2-15-110882Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 2a korteriühistu · 80245744

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayBills and justification of chargesApartment association board and managementAuthority and representation

How it started · editorial summary

Objections about authority and accounts did not remove the duty to pay established charges.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-110882/16Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Narva Sõbralik: objections to authority and charges

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Narva Sõbralik · 80245744

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — KÜ Narva Sõbralik; defendant — owner XX

How it started · editorial summary

Objections about authority and accounts did not remove the duty to pay established charges.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Narva Sõbralik (now — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 2a korteriühistu). KÜ Narva Sõbralik claimed management charges and late-payment interest from owner XX. The defendant disputed the signatory’s authority, the response deadline, the basis for the charge under the articles and the annual accounts. The court confirmed authority using a registry extract as at filing; the order admitting the claim provided a response period. The provision cited by the defendant concerned members’ rights rather than the disputed charge; other comments about accounts were considered irrelevant to this claim. The court found that the association had provided the necessary evidence and there were no substantive objections to the specific debt or calculation. The claim was allowed in simplified proceedings: debt, accrued late-payment interest, further late-payment interest under the operative part of 0.07% per day on principal from 1 August 2015 until payment, and the state fee were awarded. The court considered the objections filed; this was not a default judgment. Performance was not established.

Outcome of this decision

The claim was allowed after examination of the objections; debt, late-payment interest and the state fee were awarded.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Allow the claim of korteriühistu (KÜ) Narva Sõbralik (RK 80245744).
First instance
Case 2-13-8500Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Korteriühistu XX

Documents and informationInspection and copies of documentsApartment association board and managementAuthority and representationParking and groundsConstruction of parking facilitiesUse of shared land

How it started · editorial summary

The court distinguished general procedures for handling requests from a specific refusal to provide necessary information.

· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-13-8500/72Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Board responses to requests and equal access to information

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Korteriühistu XX ·

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: XX — claimant and appellant, association member; Association XX — defendant

How it started · editorial summary

The court distinguished general procedures for handling requests from a specific refusal to provide necessary information.

The dispute and the court’s decision

XX challenged association XX’s decisions on parking and handling requests. Following remittal from the Supreme Court, Tartu Ringkonnakohus reconsidered only the requests provision; the parking issue had already been resolved. The court stressed members’ equal entitlement to necessary information and assessment of each request on its substance. The board nevertheless need not provide a written response to every communication unrelated to legitimate management interests. Here, documents had been supplied, maintenance questions explained at a meeting, and authorising the chair to respond alone did not infringe the member’s rights.

Outcome of this decision

The appeal was dismissed. The ultimate rejection of the claim was upheld on revised legal grounds. This does not authorise arbitrary denial of information: an unjustified refusal in a specific instance may be challenged. XX bears the first-instance and appellate costs.

A checked extract in this language is not yet available.

Appeal
Case 2-11-63591Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Korteriühistu Puškini 2, 2A, 4 · 80162596 · dissolved · Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 2a korteriühistu · 80245744

Apartment association board and managementReorganisation and liquidationAuthority and representation

How it started · editorial summary

Former board member XX filed the application on behalf of the deregistered association. The court examined whether it could be accepted after an order to remedy defects.

· Order (kohtumäärus)Viru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-11-63591/5Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Puškini 2,2A,4 v Narva Sõbralik: application not accepted for proceedings because the claims were unclear and the court fee unpaid

Order (kohtumäärus) · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KORTERIÜHISTU Puškini 2,2A,4 · Korteriühistu Narva Sõbralik · 80162596 · 80245744

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant in the filed application – deregistered apartment association Puškini 2,2A,4; applicant XX – former board member who filed on behalf of the association; defendant – apartment association Narva Sõbralik

How it started · editorial summary

Former board member XX filed the application on behalf of the deregistered association. The court examined whether it could be accepted after an order to remedy defects.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Former board member XX applied on behalf of the deregistered apartment association Puškini 2,2A,4 against the apartment association Narva Sõbralik (now – Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 2a korteriühistu). The applicant sought a declaration that a transaction was void, meaning it had no legal effect from the outset, supplementary liquidation, and restoration of the former liquidator’s powers. The court had previously required a clear statement of the claims and their grounds, a value for the claim, payment of the court fee, and information about the association’s undistributed assets. Instead of a properly completed application, explanations were submitted disputing the procedural order and describing meetings and liquidation. The court considered them unclear and found that the required defects had not been remedied and the fee had not been paid. By its order of 28 February 2012, it therefore refused to accept the application for proceedings and returned it with its attachments to the person who filed it, XX. Costs were also imposed on XX. The court did not decide the transaction or liquidation claims on their merits or find them unfounded. It explained that, following this return, the application was deemed never to have been filed or pending. Dates for the earlier order and its service conflict within the source; a reliable chronology for remedying the defects cannot be reconstructed from it.

Outcome of this decision

Refuse to accept for proceedings former board member XX’s application filed on behalf of the apartment association Puškini 2,2A,4 against the apartment association Narva Sõbralik; return the application and attachments to the filer. XX must bear the costs. The alleged nullity of the transaction and supplementary liquidation were not decided on their merits.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Refuse to accept for proceedings the claim […] by XX, former board member of KORTERIÜHISTU Puškini 2,2A,4 (deleted from the register), and return the application with attachments to the person who filed it. […] 2. XX shall bear the litigation costs.
First instance