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 2-22-9419Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 3 korteriühistu · 80162521

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeArticles of association and amendmentsVoting and representationHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating charges

How it started · editorial summary

After the nullity application succeeded, Rosehill challenged being left to bear its own costs. The main outcome concerning the articles was not at issue in this appeal.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-9419/25Read act

Separate act page

An association’s new articles: notice of the meeting by email

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Osaühing Rosehill · Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 3 korteriühistu · 10972543 · 80162521

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Osaühing Rosehill; Person concerned — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 3 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

Osaühing Rosehill challenged approval of the new articles because it had not received the notice or draft. The appeal court later changed only the allocation of procedural costs.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Osaühing Rosehill, which owned premises in the building, sought a declaration that the 29.04.2022 resolution approving new articles of Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 3 korteriühistu was void. It challenged notice of the meeting, allocation of costs and voting arrangements. The association said it had sent the notice and draft in advance to an email address known to it. The court found that the email had been sent to an account that was already closed. Sending the message did not prove its delivery. The company had received neither the notice nor the draft and could not prepare for the meeting. The court regarded this as a material defect in convening the meeting. The absence of a signature on the notice was not itself considered a material defect. The court found the meeting quorate but declared its resolution void because of the notice defect. It therefore did not examine the alternative objections to the substance of the articles. The court refused to stay proceedings pending the other dispute about the articles. Initially, each participant was left to bear its own costs. On 31 October 2025, however, Tartu Ringkonnakohus reversed only the costs part: the association must bear the costs of both the first-instance and appeal proceedings, with the amount to be determined separately by Viru Maakohus. The finding that the meeting resolution was void was not challenged or re-examined on appeal.

Outcome of this decision

The first-instance court declared the 29 April 2022 meeting resolution void and refused a stay. On 31 October 2025, Tartu Ringkonnakohus changed only the costs allocation: the association must bear the costs of both instances, with the amount to be determined separately. The finding of nullity was not re-examined.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Declare the resolution adopted by the apartment owners’ general meeting of Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 3 korteriühistu on 29 April 2022 void.
First instance
· Appeal court ruling on court costsTartu Ringkonnakohtu tsiviilkolleegium · Appeal · № 2-22-9419/34Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Osaühing Rosehill: costs of challenge to apartment association Kangelaste prospekt 3’s decision allocated to association

Appeal court ruling on court costs · Tartu Ringkonnakohtu tsiviilkolleegium · Appeal

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 3 korteriühistu · Osaühing Rosehill · 80162521 · 10972543

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant and appellant against the ruling — Osaühing Rosehill; interested person — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 3 korteriühistu; applicant’s representative XX; association’s representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

After the nullity application succeeded, Rosehill challenged being left to bear its own costs. The main outcome concerning the articles was not at issue in this appeal.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Osaühing Rosehill challenged Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 3 korteriühistu’s meeting decision of 29 April 2022 adopting new articles. It cited inadequate notice, documents sent to an old non-working email address and the articles’ content. The association said it sent necessary materials to the known address and complied with convening rules. On 9 May 2025, Viru Maakohus declared the decision void, meaning without legal effect from adoption, but left each participant to bear its own costs. It considered that the company contributed to non-notification by not supplying current details. Rosehill appealed only costs, arguing that the association knew the addresses used from ongoing correspondence. The association sought to retain the original allocation. The circuit court confined review to costs. Nullity had not been appealed and, according to this act, that part was already final. The court noted a substantive dispute over the meeting decision’s lawfulness. It is normally fair to allocate costs to the losing participant. The company had properly sought judicial protection because convening rules were breached and incurred costs that would not otherwise have arisen. The ruling of 31 October 2025 allowed the appeal, allocating first-instance and appeal costs to the association, with the amount to be set later by Viru Maakohus. It also explained that the fee for this appeal was 50 euros rather than the 70 paid; a request was needed for a 20 euro refund. This explanation is not a refund already made.

Outcome of this decision

Set aside the costs allocation in the ruling of 09.05.2025 and allocate costs to the association. Allow Rosehill’s appeal against the ruling and allocate its costs to the association too. Viru Maakohus will determine the amount after the final act enters into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Allow Osaühing Rosehill’s appeal against the ruling. 3. Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 3 korteriühistu shall bear the procedural costs of the appeal against the ruling.
Appeal
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 2-22-670Source: 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 2-22-7596Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Soldina tn 2 korteriühistu · 80180921

Apartment association meetings and decisionsVoting and representationArticles of association and amendments

How it started · editorial summary

Applicant XX sought a finding of nullity of the apartment association Soldina tn 2’s decisions of 20.04.2022 adopted without convening a meeting.

· Ruling on an application challenging general meeting decisionsViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-22-7596/5Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Apartment association Soldina tn 2’s written voting decisions declared void for breach of articles

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

Narva linn, Soldina tn 2 korteriühistu · 80180921

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant XX; interested person — Narva linn, Soldina tn 2 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

Applicant XX sought a finding of nullity of the apartment association Soldina tn 2’s decisions of 20.04.2022 adopted without convening a meeting.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Applicant XX sought a finding that Narva linn, Soldina tn 2 korteriühistu’s decisions were void, meaning without legal effect from adoption. They were recorded in minutes dated 20 April 2022 after written voting on 5–19 April. Owners received a ballot with 22 draft decisions and business activity documents. The minutes recorded positions from 110 participants and declared most drafts adopted. The applicant cited clause 6.14 of the articles: written decisions were equivalent to meeting decisions only if all association members participated. The association acknowledged the facts and agreed the application should be granted. The court nevertheless independently examined the articles, ballots and minutes. It found no question had been voted on by all members, breaching the articles’ procedure. It declared the decisions void on that basis. It separately explained that the applicant sought nullity, not setting aside: prior objection to the drafts was not a necessary prerequisite for such a request. Despite granting the application, each party retained its own costs. The court found no confirmation that the applicant had notified the association of nullity before applying, while the association admitted the requests immediately. It considered the dispute could have been settled without proceedings and awarded no participant reimbursement. The act concerns written voting procedure in this association; it contains no independent assessment of the business merits of each draft.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the application and declare the owners’ decisions of 20.04.2022 at the apartment association Soldina tn 2 on the written voting questions of 05–19.04.2022 void. Each participant bears their own costs; there are no reimbursable costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Grant the application.
First instance
Case 2-23-11384Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Vestervalli tn 6 korteriühistu · 80170874

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeArticles of association and amendmentsVoting and representationAgenda and minutesDocuments and informationInspection and copies of documentsReporting and review of expenditure

How it started · editorial summary

Applicant XX sought review of the apartment association Vestervalli tn 6 decisions of 12.06.2023 on the report and articles; the association denied the grounds.

· Ruling on an application challenging general meeting decisionsViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-23-11384/19Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Vestervalli tn 6: report approval declared void because provision of materials was not proved

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

Narva linn, Vestervalli tn 6 korteriühistu · 80170874

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant XX; interested person – Narva linn, Vestervalli tn 6 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

Applicant XX sought review of the apartment association Vestervalli tn 6 decisions of 12.06.2023 on the report and articles; the association denied the grounds.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Applicant XX challenged the Narva linn, Vestervalli tn 6 korteriühistu general meeting decisions of 12 June 2023 on the board’s 2022 report and a new version of the articles. XX alleged that annual accounts had not been received beforehand and that votes and participation by a person interested in changing payments were handled incorrectly in the articles vote. The association objected that only a board activity report was discussed, materials were sent and adoption of new articles was postponed altogether. The court first examined grounds for nullity, meaning no legal effect from adoption. It found that the association submitted an annual report to the register after the meeting and rejected the assertion that only an informal activity report was considered. The applicant had given the association an email address, so preparation materials had to be sent there. The original email supplied contained the agenda, but the court could not establish attachments. Their appearance in an email forwarded to the representative did not prove timely delivery to the applicant. Failure to provide the materials was a substantial defect in meeting preparation that prevented informed voting. The first decision, approving the board’s 2022 report, was declared void. For the articles, the result differed: the minutes showed postponement to the next meeting and no adoption of a new version. The court rejected that part because there was no decision to declare void or invalidate. It therefore did not examine vote counting or voting restrictions. As the application succeeded only partly, each participant retained its own costs.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the application in part: declare decision No. 1 approving the board’s 2022 report void. Dismiss the remainder. Each participant bears its own costs, which are not to be quantified.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Grant the applicant’s application in part and declare decision number one of the Narva linn, Vestervalli tn 6 korteriühistu general meeting of 12.06.2023 — to approve the board’s 2022 report — void. Dismiss the application in all other respects.
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 2-21-15967Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu · 80069939

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayBills and justification of chargesApartment association meetings and decisionsArticles of association and amendments

How it started · editorial summary

The association proved principal but not grounds to apply the articles’ maximum interest. The court awarded debt and statutory interest.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-21-15967/7Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 32: principal awarded, but articles’ interest ceiling not treated as an established rate

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu · 80069939

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu; interested person XX — owner; association’s representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association proved principal but not grounds to apply the articles’ maximum interest. The court awarded debt and statutory interest.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court awarded the apartment association Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 principal against owner XX but reduced the interest claim. The articles stated a maximum rate, but the association supplied no separate meeting decision establishing its application. The association sought payment for maintenance and utilities and charged interest of 0,07% per day. During proceedings it increased the claim for subsequent months and provided additional documents at the court’s request. The owner received the materials personally but submitted no position or objections. The court checked ownership, invoices, minutes approving rates, supplier documents and calculations. It found principal proved. The absence of objections did not replace that examination. It assessed interest differently. The articles required interest at the amount and in the manner set by the meeting, capped at “no more than 0,07% per day”. The court explained that a ceiling does not itself establish a rate of 0,07%. Without the necessary decision, it applied the statutory rate and calculated accrued interest on that basis instead of the sums sought. The ruling of 29 April 2022 partly granted the application, awarding principal, interest accrued at the statutory rate and further statutory interest on principal until performance. The interested person was left to bear their own costs and 90% of the association’s costs, with the remaining 10% borne by the association. The amount was to be determined separately. The act resolves a specific charging dispute and does not confirm that the award has already been paid.

Outcome of this decision

Partly grant the application. Award principal, accrued statutory interest and further statutory interest on principal until performance against interested person XX. Leave their own costs to them; allocate 90% of the association’s costs to them and 10% to the association. Determine the monetary amount separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Partly grant Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu’s application to recover debt from XX.
First instance
Case 2-19-18809Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 43 korteriühistu · 80274757

Apartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the boardApartment association meetings and decisionsQuorum and repeat meetingsArticles of association and amendments

How it started · editorial summary

The board registration dispute depended on which version of the articles determined the meeting quorum.

· RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-19-18809/8Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Kangelaste prospekt 43: refusal to amend board details set aside

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 43 korteriühistu · 80274757

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant and appellant — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 43 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The board registration dispute depended on which version of the articles determined the meeting quorum.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The circuit court set aside refusal to amend board details for the apartment association Kangelaste prospekt 43 and remitted the entry question to the registry department. Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 43 korteriühistu sought removal of two board members’ details and amendment of the end dates for three others. The registry department refused, considering that the deciding meeting lacked the required majority. The association objected that an earlier version of the articles had been applied. Tartu Ringkonnakohus allowed the appeal and remitted the entry question. It found that the 2011 meeting had adopted articles with a quorum, meaning the required attendance, of at least one third of members or representatives. A later meeting changed only the board’s term. Yet the 2016 application attached a text with wider changes, including the former requirement for more than half the members. Attaching that text without a corresponding meeting decision does not make those provisions part of the articles. The circuit court directed that the 2011 one-third rule be used for quorum and that the current version of the articles be established. The registry file also contained powers of attorney in Russian: the applicant must be given time to supply an Estonian translation by a sworn translator. The appeal ruling does not itself amend the board details or complete registration. It sets aside refusal and requires reconsideration using the proper articles and documents. Costs remain with the applicant; because the appeal succeeded, a fee refund may be requested separately.

Outcome of this decision

Allow the appeal and set aside the registry department’s refusal of 8 November 2019. Remit the entry question for reconsideration; this act does not make the entry itself.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Allow Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 43 korteriühistu’s appeal against the ruling.
Appeal
Case 2-16-14583Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 42 korteriühistu · 80054903

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeQuorum and repeat meetingsAgenda and minutesArticles of association and amendments

How it started · editorial summary

The repeat meeting was found competent to decide under the association’s articles. The appeal court rejected both claimants’ requests to set aside the decisions or establish their nullity.

· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-16-14583/34Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 42: appeal court rejected both claimants’ challenges to a repeat meeting

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Korteriühistu Tallinna mnt 42 · 80054903

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: two claimants XX — association members; one claimant XX — appellant; defendant and appellant — apartment association; parties’ representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

The repeat meeting was found competent to decide under the association’s articles. The appeal court rejected both claimants’ requests to set aside the decisions or establish their nullity.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The circuit court allowed the apartment association Tallinna mnt 42’s appeal and dismissed the appeal of one of the two claimants XX. As a result, both claimants’ challenges to the meeting decisions of 4 August 2016 were rejected and costs at both instances allocated to them. The claimants considered that the meeting lacked enough participants to decide. After the meeting of 21 July failed for lack of a quorum, a new one was convened. They argued that the invitation did not identify it as a repeat meeting, so more than half of all members had to attend. The association replied that both meetings had the same agenda and its articles allowed a repeat meeting to decide regardless of attendance. The first instance granted one participant’s claim but dismissed the other’s because that person was present when the decisions were adopted and did not request that objections be recorded in the minutes. The circuit court confirmed the latter ground for a request to set a decision aside. It also explained that this participant could invoke nullity, meaning no legal effect from adoption, even without recorded objections. The court nevertheless found no grounds for nullity. The articles’ repeat meeting rule complied with the law applied. The meeting of 4 August was recognised as a repeat meeting because it followed a meeting with the same agenda lacking a quorum. Even omission of the word “repeat” from the notice did not itself make it a first meeting. The alleged convening breaches were not established. The court also noted defects in the original judgment’s wording: all items, including purely organisational ones, cannot be set aside without clarification. The county court will determine the amount of costs after the appeal judgment enters into force.

Outcome of this decision

Set aside the grant of one claimant’s claim and the earlier costs allocation. In the new complete operative part, dismiss both claimants XX’s claims. Allow the association’s appeal and dismiss the other claimant’s appeal. Allocate costs at both instances to the claimants, with the amount determined separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
5. Allow Korteriühistu Tallinna mnt 42’s appeal.
Appeal
Case 2-15-18123Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 19 korteriühistu · 80021192

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeArticles of association and amendmentsBudget, management plan and ratesApartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the boardParking and groundsConstruction of parking facilities

How it started · editorial summary

The court approved the agreement between Narva linn and the association on nullity of the listed meeting decisions and reimbursement of costs; proceedings were terminated.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-18123/43Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kangelaste 19: court approved city and association’s agreement on nullity of meeting decisions

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn · Narva Linnaelamu · Kangelaste pr 19 korteriühistu · · 11129843 · 80021192

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — Narva linn through Narva Linnaelamu; defendant — apartment association; parties’ representatives XX; former management board chair XX

How it started · editorial summary

The court approved the agreement between Narva linn and the association on nullity of the listed meeting decisions and reimbursement of costs; proceedings were terminated.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court approved an agreement between Narva linn, acting through Narva Linnaelamu, and the apartment association Kangelaste pr 19 and terminated the case. The city challenged the association’s general meeting decision of 20 June 2015, seeking a finding of nullity, meaning absence of legal effect, or alternatively to have it set aside. Under the agreement, the association accepted that the meeting decisions of 11 February 2016 electing a board, choosing an audit firm, confirming the meeting decision of 20 June 2015 and amending the articles were void because the convening procedure had been breached. The agreement also lists related decisions on reporting, the management plan, board activities and membership, moving a playground and building a parking area, which the parties acknowledged as void. The court checked that the agreement did not conflict with the law, good morals or the public interest. The association undertook to reimburse the city a 150 euro fee and 1100 euros in legal assistance costs. The court additionally ordered a refund to the city of 150 euros of the fee paid, payable after the ruling enters into force. The parties waived appeals. If the agreement is not performed, the creditor may apply to a bailiff; the act contains no information on actual performance.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement on nullity of the listed general meeting decisions and terminate proceedings. The association undertakes to reimburse the city a 150 euro fee and 1 100 euros in legal costs. The court ordered a further 150 euros in fees refunded to the city from the budget after entry into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Terminate the proceedings in the case.
First instance
Case 2-17-7218Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 19 korteriühistu · 80021192

Apartment association meetings and decisionsArticles of association and amendmentsApartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the board

How it started · editorial summary

The default judgment declared the general meeting decision of 28 April 2017 void on the matters specified by the court.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-7218/11Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kangelaste pr 19: default judgment declared the board election and articles amendment decision void

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Kangelaste pr 19 · 80021192

Entry into force has not been reverified

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

How it started · editorial summary

The default judgment declared the general meeting decision of 28 April 2017 void on the matters specified by the court.

The dispute and the court’s decision

XX brought a claim against KÜ Kangelaste pr 19 seeking a declaration that a general meeting decision was void. The court granted the claim by default: it declared void the decision of 28 April 2017 electing three board members and approving a new version of clauses 6.4 and 6.5 of the articles of association. Nullity means that the decision has no legal effect from adoption. The judgment contains an operative part and explanations of procedure, but no account of the dispute’s circumstances or reasons. The available text therefore does not establish specific irregularities in convening the meeting or voting. The association must pay XX 500 euros in costs: a 300-euro court fee and 200 euros for legal assistance. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security; actual performance is not confirmed.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the claim by default. Declare void the meeting decision of 28 April 2017 electing three board members and approving new versions of clauses 6.4 and 6.5 of the articles. Award 500 euros in costs against the association. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security.
First instance