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 2-22-14923Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Vestervalli tn 6 korteriühistu · 80170874

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesChanges to or disconnection from heatingApartment association meetings and decisionsArticles of association and amendmentsBudget, management plan and rates

How it started · editorial summary

The court granted owner XX’s request to recalculate maintenance and heating. The association did not substantiate exclusion of some premises from cost allocation.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-14923/25Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Vestervalli tn 6: court ordered recalculation of maintenance and heating charges

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Vestervalli tn 6 korteriühistu · 80170874

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant XX — owner; interested person — Narva linn, Vestervalli tn 6 korteriühistu; applicant’s representative XX; association’s representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

The court granted owner XX’s request to recalculate maintenance and heating. The association did not substantiate exclusion of some premises from cost allocation.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Owner XX obtained recalculation of charges from the apartment association Narva linn, Vestervalli tn 6. The court declared the maintenance and heating debt claimed against the owner absent as of 31 December 2024. The dispute concerned the floor area used to allocate common costs. The owner relied on the common ownership share and full premises area in the land register. The association excluded some non-residential premises and also accounted for some premises switching to independent heating. The applicant sought a declaration of no debt and an order to change the calculation. After clarification, the association accepted absence of maintenance debt but continued opposing the heating demands, relying on meeting decisions, articles and technical system features. The court examined the claims fully despite partial admission. For maintenance, the association did not prove a proper basis for allocating costs other than by common ownership shares. The court accepted the applicant’s calculation. For heating, it distinguished the ability to change the system from the basis for allocating costs afterwards. It did not find it proved that switching to independent heating itself required every owner’s consent. However, Vestervalli tn 6’s articles lacked sufficiently specific cost redistribution rules for this situation. The court did not accept meeting decisions as a substitute for the necessary agreement. It excluded another association’s articles as irrelevant to the dispute. The ruling of 30 June 2025 declared no maintenance debt of 724,07 euros or heating debt of 885,76* euros for August 2021 to December 2024 and ordered recalculation. Costs were allocated to the association, with the amount set separately. The court decided charges for that period, rather than awarding repayment of those sums to the applicant.

Outcome of this decision

Declare that applicant XX owes the association no maintenance debt of 724,07 euros or heating debt of 885,76* euros as of 31.12.2024 for August 2021 to December 2024. Require recalculation of those payments. Allocate costs to the association and determine the amount separately after entry into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
6. Narva linn, Vestervalli tn 6 korteriühistu shall bear the procedural costs.
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 2-24-8672Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Energia tn 3 korteriühistu · 80189425

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeQuorum and repeat meetingsAgenda and minutesBudget, management plan and ratesApartment association bills, payments and debtsPayment accounting and set-off

How it started · editorial summary

Owner XX sought nullity or invalidation of parts of the repeat-meeting decisions; a general defect in notice of decision-making authority proved decisive.

· Ruling (kohtumäärus), non-contentious proceedingsViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-24-8672/8Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Energia tn 3: all repeat-meeting decisions declared void because of deficient notice

Ruling (kohtumäärus), non-contentious proceedings · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Energia tn 3 korteriühistu · 80189425

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant XX – owner challenging the decisions; interested person – Narva linn, Energia tn 3 korteriühistu; association representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

Owner XX sought nullity or invalidation of parts of the repeat-meeting decisions; a general defect in notice of decision-making authority proved decisive.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Applicant XX challenged certain decisions of the apartment association Narva linn, Energia tn 3 repeat meeting of 10 April 2024. The dispute concerned the management report, rates and additional provisions on payment accounting and removal of concessions. XX alleged that some matters were absent from the agenda, the decisions were unfair and rights were infringed. The association relied on XX’s attendance, the current articles and customary repeat-meeting practice. The court found a substantial general convening defect: the invitation did not state that the repeat meeting could decide matters regardless of attendance. The association admitted the missing sentence but argued that members already knew the rule from law, the articles and practice. The court rejected this: the specific warning allows a person to assess the need to attend, so knowledge of the general rule and routine practice do not replace it. The court also found that the stated agenda items did not allow participants to expect decisions on the applicant’s specific old obligation or removal of concessions. Those provisions would have had no legal effect from adoption on that independent ground too. The applicant did not prove a conflict with good morals; the court did not separately decide invalidation because it had already found nullity. The ruling of 26 February 2025 granted the application, declaring all repeat-meeting decisions void, rather than only the items initially identified. Costs were imposed on the association and applicant XX was awarded the 50-euro fee paid. The ruling sets no new concessionary rate and does not decide a separate dispute over the amount of old arrears.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the application. Declare all decisions of the association’s repeat meeting of 10.04.2024 void. Impose all costs on the association and award applicant XX reimbursement of the 50-euro fee.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Declare it established that all decisions of the repeat general meeting of apartment owners of Narva linn, Energia tn 3 korteriühistu of 10 April 2024 are void.
First instance
Case 2-22-9792Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu · 80183173

Documents and informationInspection and copies of documentsReporting and review of expenditureContracts, loans and bank documentsApartment association meetings and decisionsVoting and representationBudget, management plan and rates

How it started · editorial summary

XX sought information, document access and a declaration that meeting resolutions did not exist; the association relied on earlier access, lack of specificity and expiry of the filing period.

· Court order on an application in non-contentious proceedingsViru Maakohus Jõhvi kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-22-9792/27Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

A. Puškini tn 65: information, documents and meeting resolutions

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

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu · 80183173

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — XX; Person concerned — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

XX sought information, document access and a declaration that meeting resolutions did not exist; the association relied on earlier access, lack of specificity and expiry of the filing period.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Applicant XX sought an order requiring Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu to provide information and access to documents about the building’s technical condition, planned works and expenditure. XX also sought a declaration that particular resolutions were not adopted at the meeting of 4 May 2022 and that a different plan was approved. XX argued that the association referred to expert materials but failed to supply them. The association said some documents were already accessible, others did not exist, the request was insufficiently specific and the court deadline had passed. Near the end, XX withdrew the declaration claim because proceedings had taken too long. On 18 February 2025, the court accepted that withdrawal and ended that part. It separately dismissed the information and document claim for missing the deadline under KrtS §45 as applicable to the 2022 request. Filing on 4 July 2022 was late whether the board’s reply was treated as refusal or no reply was assumed. The court therefore did not examine the request’s substantive merits. It explained that a fresh request could be made to the board, followed by the applicable court procedure. This did not deny owners any right to documents. XX was ordered to pay the association 1430.56* euros in costs, with late-payment interest from entry into force until payment. Legal costs were reduced by 244 euros for time spent producing documents during the case that neither XX sought as evidence nor the court required.

Outcome of this decision

Accept withdrawal of the declaration claim and end that part. Dismiss the information claim because the filing deadline had passed. Award 1430.56* euros in costs against XX, with late-payment interest from entry into force until payment.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Dismiss XX’s application to obtain information from Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu and inspect documents.
First instance
Case 2-21-10232Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Madise tn 1, Madise tn 3, Malmi tn 3, Malmi tn 5 korteriühistu · 80152178

Apartment association meetings and decisionsVoting and representationBudget, management plan and ratesDocuments and informationReporting and review of expenditure

How it started · editorial summary

XX challenged written resolutions on the association’s report and management plan. The first-instance dismissal was ultimately restored by Riigikohus, while costs were allocated differently across the instances.

· Court orderViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-21-10232/44Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Written voting on an association’s report and management plan

Court order · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Madise tn 1, Madise tn 3, Malmi tn 3, Malmi tn 5 korteriühistu · 80152178

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — XX; Person concerned — Narva linn, Madise tn 1, Madise tn 3, Malmi tn 3, Malmi tn 5 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

XX challenged written resolutions on the association’s report and management plan. The first-instance dismissal was ultimately restored by Riigikohus, while costs were allocated differently across the instances.

The dispute and the court’s decision

XX sought to have resolutions of Narva linn, Madise tn 1, Madise tn 3, Malmi tn 3, Malmi tn 5 korteriühistu, recorded on 28.04.2021, declared void or invalidated. They approved the 2020 report and 2021 management and works plan by written voting without a meeting. XX alleged missing board signatures on the report, deficiencies in the plan and failure to meet a unanimity requirement under the articles. The first-instance court found that the documents had been circulated in advance and XX could participate. It treated missing signatures as a formal defect that had not materially misrepresented the association’s finances in this case. It considered the plan sufficiently informative. It rejected an interpretation requiring every member to participate and found a quorum. The court also considered later resolutions with the same content. It dismissed the application on its merits rather than leaving it unexamined, and imposed costs on XX. On 20 December 2024, Tartu Ringkonnakohus reversed the dismissal and declared the challenged points void. On 14 May 2025, however, Riigikohus restored the first-instance dismissal of the application. First-instance costs were left with the association, while appeal and Supreme Court costs were imposed on XX. The original allocation of all costs to XX was therefore not restored.

Outcome of this decision

The first-instance dismissal was reversed by Tartu Ringkonnakohus on 20 December 2024 and restored by Riigikohus on 14 May 2025. First-instance costs were allocated to the association, and appeal and Supreme Court costs to XX. The original allocation of all costs was not restored.

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 2-20-10704Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 18 korteriühistu · 80015336

Documents and informationInspection and copies of documentsReporting and review of expenditureApartment association meetings and decisionsBudget, management plan and ratesVoting and representation

How it started · editorial summary

The association appealed against nullity of three written decision items due to lack of access to full financial documents.

· RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-20-10704/36Read actAppeal

Separate act page

A. Daumani tn 18: short report and plan did not replace access to full documents

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, A. Daumani tn 18 korteriühistu · 80015336

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicants — two owners XX; Interested person and appellant — apartment association

How it started · editorial summary

The association appealed against nullity of three written decision items due to lack of access to full financial documents.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Tartu Ringkonnakohus dismissed Narva linn, A. Daumani tn 18 korteriühistu’s appeal and upheld nullity of items 1, 5 and 13 of the decisions of 30 May 2020 concerning 2019 reporting, electricity rates and the 2020 management plan. Nullity means no legal effect from the outset. Rejection of the challenge to item 9 on replacing water risers was not appealed and, the court stated, had already become final. The decisions were adopted by written vote without a meeting. Two owners XX alleged lack of access to necessary documents. The association replied that a board report and work plan were placed in mailboxes, decisions were adopted by majority, and the audit report could be obtained. The circuit court accepted that the applicants could indeed inspect the audit report. But that did not cure the main defect: access to a legally compliant annual report and management plan was not ensured, nor were the place and procedure for inspection communicated. The brief documents distributed did not contain all the required information. In particular, the plan lacked projected utility volumes and costs; the board report did not replace a complete annual report. This prevented informed voting, including on electricity rates. The court explained that full documents need not be handed to everyone on paper: participants must be told how to inspect them. This also applies to written voting. The association’s argument that the applicants lacked financial knowledge did not limit their document rights. The first-instance costs allocation was retained: 80% to the association and 20% jointly and severally to applicants. Appeal costs were allocated to the association, with the amount set later.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss the association’s appeal and uphold the first-instance ruling. Allocate appeal costs to the association.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Dismiss Narva linna, A. Daumani tn 18 korteriühistu’s appeal against the ruling and uphold the Viru Maakohus ruling of 30 April 2021.
Appeal
Case 2-20-100537Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu · 80183301

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayParking and groundsConstruction of parking facilitiesApartment association meetings and decisionsBudget, management plan and rates

How it started · editorial summary

The participants confirmed payment of the principal claim, after which the association withdrew its application. The court approved a separate agreement for an additional 100 euros in costs.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-20-100537/18Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

P. Kerese tn 6: court approved a 100 euro costs agreement after debt payment

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu · 80183301

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu; interested person XX — debtor and party to the costs agreement; association’s representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

The participants confirmed payment of the principal claim, after which the association withdrew its application. The court approved a separate agreement for an additional 100 euros in costs.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court terminated the case after confirmed payment of the principal claim and approved an agreement for an additional 100 euros in costs to the association. The apartment association Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 sought debt and late-payment interest from participant XX. The dispute concerned earmarked contributions for a car park. After an objection in payment order proceedings, the case was transferred to Viru Maakohus. XX attempted a counter-application challenging transactions based on meeting decisions; admission was refused and the circuit court upheld that refusal. The association and XX then reported satisfaction of the claim on 17 March 2021. Their consistent reports stated that principal, late-payment interest and previously claimed costs had been paid. The association withdrew its monetary demand, and participants submitted a separate agreement on remaining court costs. Under that agreement, XX must pay the association an additional 100 euros by 31 May 2021. XX bears their own costs. The participants confirmed understanding the consequences of termination and waived appeal against the ruling. On 22 March 2021 the court accepted withdrawal of the application on the paid claim, approved the costs agreement and terminated proceedings. It found no conflict with the law or good morals. It did not separately allocate or determine recoverable costs because the amount and payment arrangements were already agreed. Principal and previously paid costs are not awarded again. The act does not confirm performance of the new 100 euro obligation.

Outcome of this decision

Accept the association’s withdrawal of the paid debt application. Approve the agreement: XX pays the association 100 euros in costs by 31.05.2021 and bears their own costs. Terminate proceedings; do not determine costs separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. Terminate proceedings in civil case No 2 -20-100537 on Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu’s debt application against XX.
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