Narva apartment associations Court decisions

The association in liquidation challenged refusal to open separate associations’ register cards under the special rules for dissolving an association covering several properties.

The apartment association Narva linn, Kosmonaudi tn 9, Linda tn 7, in liquidation, asked the registration department to open cards for two separate associations, one for each previously jointly managed property. The application relied on the general meeting’s decision to dissolve the former association under the special rules for associations covering several properties. Dissolution was already registered. The registration department refused, considering that division was permitted only without liquidation under the general association rules. It believed the former association first had to resume activity and then resolve to divide. The association appealed, relying on the special rule in KrtS § 69 lg 4 and the registrar’s duty to open new cards on its own initiative. The circuit court agreed. The special procedure permits dissolution of an association managing several properties even after KrtS entered into force. It creates a separate association for each property while the old association undergoes liquidation. Dissolution does not automatically delete the old legal person from the register. Cards for the new associations must be opened as an official duty; if the registrar fails to act, the liquidators may file the relevant application. The ruling of 8 January 2025 reversed refusal, remitted the application to the registration department and allowed the appeal. It is not a register entry made by the circuit court itself. Appeal costs were left with the association and the 70-euro fee paid is to be refunded. The ruling confirms neither actual opening of new cards nor subsequent liquidation.

Set aside the Tartu Maakohus registration department ruling of 16.08.2024 No. Ü 40014520 / 20. Remit the application of 07.08.2024 for reconsideration. Allow the appeal, leave costs with the association and refund the 70-euro fee.

The court allowed the liquidator to use the association’s account to refund mistaken payments, with discharge after the payments. The bank had terminated the liquidator’s access after the association’s removal from the register.

In the liquidation of KORTERIÜHISTU NARVA KOOLIPÕIK, liquidator XX reported that the process was complete and the association had been removed from the commercial register. The court had previously appointed the liquidator and required a completion report. It confirmed removal from the register on 29.10.2018. Members mistakenly transferred maintenance payments to the association’s account. The bank terminated the liquidator’s access, so XX sought specific authority to refund the money. The court considered access necessary for returning those mistaken payments. Proceedings were discontinued because liquidation and removal were complete. XX was authorised to use the account to return members’ money, with discharge from liquidator duties after the payments. There were no reimbursable costs. The act does not establish that refunds actually occurred.

Liquidation proceedings were discontinued. The liquidator was authorised to use the association’s account for refunds of mistaken payments and is to be discharged after making them. Actual refunds were not established. There were no reimbursable costs.

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.

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.

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.