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 2-24-8672Source: 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 2-22-18555Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Suur tn 12 korteriühistu · 80218997

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeDocuments and informationInspection and copies of documentsReporting and review of expenditure

How it started · editorial summary

Applicant XX sought to set aside or establish nullity of the annual report approval decision; the court examined prior access to documents.

· Court rulingViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-22-18555/10Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Suur tn 12: annual report approval void because document inspection procedure was not communicated

Court ruling · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Suur tn 12 korteriühistu · 80218997

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant XX — person challenging the decision; interested person — Narva linn, Suur tn 12 korteriühistu (80218997); applicant’s representative XX; association’s representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

Applicant XX sought to set aside or establish nullity of the annual report approval decision; the court examined prior access to documents.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Applicant XX challenged item 2 of Narva linn, Suur tn 12 korteriühistu’s meeting decisions of 11 October 2022 approving the 2021 annual report. The applicant said members received an audit report and an income and expenditure report, while the annual report later filed with the register differed in content. Preparation for voting and completeness of information were also challenged. The association objected that alleged inaccuracies in accounting documents did not themselves justify setting aside the decision. It considered posting a meeting notice and allowing members to request the full report from the board sufficient. It cited noticeboards’ limited size to explain the amount of information displayed. The court focused on inspection arrangements. The notice gave date, time, place and agenda but not where and how to inspect the documents for approval. The materials supplied beforehand did not contain all the essential data, including expenses for each apartment ownership. The court held that an opportunity to approach the board independently does not replace the mandatory communication of inspection arrangements. This prevented applicant XX from voting on the annual report on an informed basis. The ruling of 19 August 2024 found only challenged item 2 without legal effect from adoption, or void, because of a material convening breach. The court did not consider other meeting decisions and found other objections to reporting figures unnecessary to resolve this question. Costs were allocated to the association and a 50 euro fee awarded to applicant XX. The outcome therefore concerns the report approval procedure and does not confirm all allegations of inaccurate accounting data.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the application and declare item 2 of the association’s meeting decision of 11.10.2022 approving the 2021 report void. Allocate all costs to the association and award applicant XX a 50 euro fee.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Declare item 2 of Narva linn, Suur tn 12 korteriühistu’s general meeting decision of 11 October 2022 void.
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 2-23-11384Source: 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 2-21-2660Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 11 korteriühistu · 80170749

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeVoting and representationAgenda and minutesApartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the board

How it started · editorial summary

The written decisions on the board have no legal effect: the ballot questions did not show precisely what owners were voting on. The court did not separately assess whether enough votes were cast.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-21-2660/20Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kangelaste prospekt 11: written decisions on the board declared void because voting questions were unclear

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 11 korteriühistu · 80170749

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant XX – owner; interested person – Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 11 korteriühistu; applicant’s representative XX; association representative XX; board candidates XX

How it started · editorial summary

The written decisions on the board have no legal effect: the ballot questions did not show precisely what owners were voting on. The court did not separately assess whether enough votes were cast.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court declared the written decisions of owners of the apartment association Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 11 dated 22 December 2020 void. They had no legal effect from adoption because owners were not given clearly formulated voting questions. Applicant XX challenged a board election held without a meeting. The noticeboard named two issues: recalling the former board and electing a new board with a chair. The ballot, however, listed candidate names and for-or-against options without separating those issues. The applicant also alleged that the majority required by the articles had not been obtained. The association objected that the document’s substance mattered more than its title and the procedure had been followed. The board later decided not to implement the disputed decisions or change the register entry. The association proposed settlement with partial fee reimbursement. The applicant disagreed, including over costs allocation. The court found that the ballots did not make clear whether a vote meant recall of the old board or election of the new one. In a written vote, owners must have a clear draft decision. Its absence and unclear questions were a substantial breach of decision-making procedure. Having established nullity, the court did not examine the sufficiency of votes as a separate ground for invalidation. The board’s refusal to implement the decisions and absence of a register entry did not remove the owner’s interest in judicial review: validity does not depend only on submission to the register. The ruling of 5 September 2023 granted the application. The applicant’s costs were imposed on the association, which must also bear its own. The court left monetary quantification for a separate decision after finality.

Outcome of this decision

Grant owner XX’s application and declare the association’s decisions of 22.12.2020 void. The association bears the applicant’s costs and its own. Quantify costs separately after the ruling becomes final.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Declare the decisions of the apartment owners of Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 11 korteriühistu of 22.12.2020 void.
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 2-20-5373Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12 korteriühistu · 80175498

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeVoting and representationDocuments and informationInspection and copies of documentsReporting and review of expenditure

How it started · editorial summary

The association appealed the declaration that meeting decisions were void. The circuit court gave decisive weight to applicant XX’s representative having read the materials beforehand and attended the meeting.

· RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-20-5373/28Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Kangelaste prospekt 12: circuit court reversed declaration that meeting decisions were void

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12 korteriühistu · 80175498

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant XX – challenged meeting decisions; interested person and appellant against the ruling – Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12 korteriühistu; applicant’s and association’s representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association appealed the declaration that meeting decisions were void. The circuit court gave decisive weight to applicant XX’s representative having read the materials beforehand and attended the meeting.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The circuit court reversed the declaration that meeting decisions were void and dismissed XX’s application; each party was left to bear its own costs. Applicant XX sought a declaration that decisions of the apartment association Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12 meeting of 12 March 2020 were void, meaning without legal effect from adoption. XX relied on failure to send the invitation and materials to an email address known to the association, absence of detailed access arrangements and overly short time for viewing documents. The association objected that the representative initially supplied no power of attorney but later received the documents and participated in the meeting. Viru Maakohus granted the application and imposed costs on the association. The association appealed. The circuit court accepted that it should have sent the invitation and papers to the known address on its own initiative. Nullity, however, required a substantial defect in meeting preparation that prevented the participant from learning of the meeting and preparing to vote. Here the applicant knew the meeting’s time and place. The representative received the necessary papers beforehand through another owner represented, read them, participated and stated objections. The court therefore did not regard failure to send the applicant a separate letter as substantially limiting those opportunities. Refusal to show documents to a person without authority also did not establish the alleged ground of nullity. Failure to explain the need for a power of attorney and allowing one hour for inspection did not change that finding. On 2 July 2021, the circuit court allowed the association’s appeal, reversed the nullity declaration and dismissed the application. Each participant bears its own costs at both levels: the association could have avoided the dispute by sending materials properly. The court thus found a breach of the duty to send documents but not the substantial impact needed for the outcome sought.

Outcome of this decision

Set aside the Viru Maakohus ruling of 11.05.2021 insofar as it granted the application, declared the meeting decisions of 12.03.2020 void and addressed association costs. Issue a new ruling dismissing the application. Allow the appeal; each participant bears its own first-instance and circuit court costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Allow the appeal against the ruling.
Appeal
Case 2-19-9699Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Rakvere tn 20, Rakvere tn 20a, Rakvere tn 20b, Rakvere tn 20c korteriühistu · 80180335

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeBudget, management plan and ratesDocuments and informationReporting and review of expenditureInspection and copies of documents

How it started · editorial summary

The court distinguished breach of the duty to send documents from a material breach making meeting decisions void.

· Court orderViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-19-9699/34Read act

Separate act page

Meeting documents by email: a breach without nullity of the resolutions

Court order · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Rakvere tn 20, Rakvere tn 20a, Rakvere tn 20b, Rakvere tn 20c korteriühistu · 80180335

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — XX; Person concerned — Narva linn, Rakvere tn 20, Rakvere tn 20a, Rakvere tn 20b, Rakvere tn 20c korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

XX challenged resolutions because documents were not emailed. The court recognised the duty to send them but found no material obstruction to preparation or participation and refused the application.

The dispute and the court’s decision

XX sought a declaration that four resolutions of Narva linn, Rakvere tn 20, Rakvere tn 20a, Rakvere tn 20b, Rakvere tn 20c korteriühistu made on 29.04.2019 were void: those on the report, repairs, management plan and reserve capital. The complaint was that notice and documents had not been sent to the email address notified to the association. The association relied on noticeboards and its lack of a computer. The court found that XX had previously supplied an address. Notification before the new law entered into force did not remove the duty to use known contact details. The absence of a computer was not an excuse. It separately examined whether the breach materially affected participation in decision-making. In this case, documents were on noticeboards, XX knew about the meeting, could inspect drafts and acknowledged attending. Objection to taking the decisions at the meeting was not proved. The court therefore found no ground of nullity and refused the application. It did not examine the substantive legality of each resolution as a separate invalidation claim. Costs were imposed on XX, with their amount to be determined separately.

Outcome of this decision

The request to declare the 29.04.2019 resolutions void was refused. The court found a breach of the electronic-delivery duty but did not consider it sufficiently material on these facts to cause nullity. XX bears costs, with their amount determined separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Order the applicant to bear the procedural costs.
First instance
· RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-19-9699/41Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Rakvere 20–20c: failure to email documents did not make meeting decisions void

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, Rakvere tn 20, Rakvere tn 20a, Rakvere tn 20b, Rakvere tn 20c korteriühistu · 80180335

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant and appellant — XX; Respondent — Narva linn, Rakvere tn 20, Rakvere tn 20a, Rakvere tn 20b, Rakvere tn 20c korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The court distinguished breach of the duty to send documents from a material breach making meeting decisions void.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The circuit court dismissed XX’s appeal and upheld refusal to declare the meeting decisions void, meaning without effect from adoption. Applicant XX sought nullity of the general meeting decisions of 29 April 2019 of Narva linn, Rakvere tn 20, Rakvere tn 20a, Rakvere tn 20b, Rakvere tn 20c korteriühistu. The dispute concerned the annual report, repairs, management plan and reserve capital. The applicant alleged defective convening: notice and materials had not been sent to the email address previously supplied. The association replied that documents were available on noticeboards. The county court rejected the application. Tartu Ringkonnakohus examined the appeal on its merits and upheld that result. It confirmed that the association had to send notice and materials to the supplied address and had breached that duty. However, nullity follows from a material breach of convening rules, not every departure. Here the applicant knew of the meeting, the notice stated where and how to inspect materials, and the same documents had been on noticeboards in advance. The court found a real opportunity to examine and understand them without additional expense. Non-receipt by email therefore did not materially restrict rights. The circuit court separately clarified that attendance and voting alone do not cure a material breach or automatically approve the decisions. It dismissed the appeal and allocated appeal costs to the applicant; the county court will determine the amount after the final act enters into force.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss XX’s appeal and uphold the county court ruling of 20 March 2020. The applicant bears appeal costs, with the amount set separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Uphold the Viru Maakohus ruling of 20 March 2020.
Appeal
Case 2-17-1555Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu · 80183301

Parking and groundsConstruction of parking facilitiesUse of shared landBarriers, permits and accessApartment association meetings and decisionsVoting and representationConvening meetings and advance noticeAgenda and minutes

How it started · editorial summary

Owner XX did not obtain a declaration that the December parking decision was void. The appeal court did not examine the new dispute over the April decision on its merits.

· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-17-1555/38Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Kerese 6: parking decision not declared void; new demand on appeal left unexamined

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu · 80183301

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and appellant XX – owner; defendant – apartment association; parties’ representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

Owner XX did not obtain a declaration that the December parking decision was void. The appeal court did not examine the new dispute over the April decision on its merits.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The circuit court upheld the refusal to declare the apartment association Kerese 6 parking decision of 20 December 2016 void. It left the demand concerning a separate decision of 13 April 2016 unexamined because no such demand had been made at first instance. Owner XX challenged approval of the parking project, tree felling and pruning, and installation of road signs. He argued that creating parking on a green area required all owners’ consent, whereas decisions were made by majority. The association objected that parking had already been approved and the December decisions merely organised the works. The appeal court disagreed with that explanation: the April decision was too indefinite to count as a construction decision. It was the December project that specified the future parking area and tree works. This did not, however, justify granting the demand made. The owner sought a declaration of nullity, meaning no legal effect from adoption, rather than an alternative order invalidating an unlawful decision. The court considered that an alleged breach of co-owner consent rules did not itself cause nullity. The materials also did not establish a change in the plot’s intended use substantial enough to require the provision cited by the claimant. The court found no other grounds for nullity, including a proven breach of convening requirements. The court did not allow a separate challenge to the April decision to be added on appeal. Appeal costs were imposed on the claimant; the first-instance court will quantify them separately. The court applied the rules in force when the meeting decisions were adopted in 2016; its findings concern the demand made and those materials.

Outcome of this decision

Uphold the first-instance judgment of 30.08.2017. Leave the appeal concerning nullity of the meeting decision of 13.04.2016 unexamined and dismiss the rest. Claimant XX bears appeal costs, to be quantified separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Dismiss XX’s appeal in all other respects.
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