Skip to decisions
Žuk — ANTON и JELENA

Narva apartment associations Court decisions

The collection is growing. We explain decisions in accessible language. Browsing by subject helps readers study building management practice, explore similar situations and prevent conflicts.

Materials for studying practice. An editorial summary does not replace an individual legal assessment or promise a dispute outcome.

Subjects and subtopics

A subject describes the dispute; it does not establish a violation.

Additional parameters

Reset all
Case 2-24-8672Source: 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 2-22-670Source: 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 2-23-8203Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 18a korteriühistu · 80170383

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayApartment association meetings and decisionsQuorum and repeat meetingsRights in real propertyOwnership and register entries

How it started · editorial summary

The court distinguished debt recovery from compulsory transfer.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-23-8203/9Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Refusal of transfer claim and recovery of debt

Judgment · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 18a korteriühistu · 80170383

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 18a korteriühistu; defendant XX — owner

How it started · editorial summary

The court distinguished debt recovery from compulsory transfer.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 18a korteriühistu sought management-charge debt and compulsory transfer of XX’s apartment ownership. The defendant filed no objections. Only 23 of 90 members participated in the initial owners’ decision where a majority was required; the court held it void. A later decision was supported by 48 of 90. However, three months for voluntary transfer must expire after a valid demand before proceedings are brought; time cannot run from a void decision. The transfer claim was refused. Proven monetary debt, accrued and continuing statutory late-payment interest on the principal were awarded, together with 430* euros in costs and statutory late-payment interest on those costs from the judgment’s entry into force. Performance is not established.

Outcome of this decision

Compulsory transfer claim dismissed; debt, late-payment interest and 430* euros in costs awarded.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Allow the claim of Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 18a korteriühistu in part.
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 2-17-19501Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 42 korteriühistu · 80175430

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsPayment accounting and set-offLate-payment interest and consequences of delayApartment association meetings and decisionsQuorum and repeat meetingsBills and justification of chargesBudget, management plan and rates

How it started · editorial summary

The circuit court examined special appeal admission conditions in a case involving a small claim.

Related prepared acts from this case are also shown.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-19501/82Read act

Separate act page

Association debt: crediting payments and interest across different periods

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 42 korteriühistu · 80175430

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 42 korteriühistu; Defendant — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought debt and late-payment interest. XX challenged the calculation, payment allocation and tariff resolutions. The court found the calculation proved and granted the claim.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 42 korteriühistu, formerly KÜ KANGELASTE 42, sought management and utility debt with late-payment interest from XX. XX accepted a general duty to contribute but disputed the amount, citing missing emailed invoices, unclear tariffs, defects in repeat meetings and incorrect crediting of payments. The court compared invoices, the consolidated calculation and payment records. The association agreed to apply payments to principal for the months specified by XX, and the court found this reflected in the final calculation. Objections to tariff resolutions did not establish nullity or timely challenge; the court treated the resolutions as valid. Accrued late-payment interest was checked separately for periods before and after the 2018 legislative change and found substantiated. The claim was granted: principal, accrued late-payment interest and continuing late-payment interest on unpaid principal from 1 January 2019 at the ECB rate determined for each half-year plus 8 percent annually were awarded until principal is paid. Costs were imposed on XX, with their amount to be determined separately. Actual payment of the award was not established.

Outcome of this decision

The claim was granted: the association was awarded principal, accrued late-payment interest and continuing late-payment interest on unpaid principal from 1 January 2019 at the ECB rate determined for each half-year plus 8 percent annually until principal is paid. XX bears their own and the association’s costs, the latter to be fixed separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Grant the claim.
First instance
· RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-17-19501/86Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Kangelaste 42: appeal refused admission in a simplified case

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Korteriühistu Kangelaste 42 · 80175430

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — Korteriühistu Kangelaste 42; Defendant and appellant — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The circuit court examined special appeal admission conditions in a case involving a small claim.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The circuit court refused to admit XX’s appeal in the apartment association Kangelaste 42’s simplified case, finding no grounds for admission. Korteriühistu Kangelaste 42 had obtained an award of management cost debt and accrued late-payment interest against defendant XX in the county court. Further statutory late-payment interest on principal was also awarded and costs allocated to the defendant. XX appealed, alleging breaches of legal rules, and requested state legal aid. Tartu Ringkonnakohus was deciding whether to admit the appeal. The case concerned a small monetary claim under the simplified procedure, subject to special appeal conditions. The court checked for an obvious misapplication of law, material procedural breaches or clearly incorrect assessment of evidence capable of affecting the outcome. The circuit court found none. It considered that the county court had examined charges, facts and evidence in detail and applied the relevant rules. The defendant’s disagreement with the outcome alone did not suffice for admission. The court refused to admit the appeal and deemed it returned to the applicant. This is an appeal admission ruling, not a new award of the same sums. The legal aid application was left undecided. The unpaid appeal fee was not required because the appeal was not admitted. A separate possibility to challenge the refusal itself is provided.

Outcome of this decision

Refuse to admit XX’s appeal and deem it returned. Leave the state legal aid application undecided; no fee is payable for the appeal that was not admitted.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Refuse to admit XX’s appeal against the Viru Maakohus judgment of 26 February 201 9 and deem the appeal returned to XX.
Appeal
Case 2-18-4960Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 12 korteriühistu · 80170609

Apartment association meetings and decisionsQuorum and repeat meetings

How it started · editorial summary

The fee was paid, but details of all necessary participants and other defects in the application were not corrected.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-18-4960/4Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Daumani 12: application to set aside a meeting decision refused admission because defects remained

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KORTERIÜHISTU DAUMANI 12 · 80170609

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — XX; Interested person — KORTERIÜHISTU DAUMANI 12

How it started · editorial summary

The fee was paid, but details of all necessary participants and other defects in the application were not corrected.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court refused to admit XX’s application to set aside KORTERIÜHISTU DAUMANI 12’s general meeting decision of 1 February 2018. Assistance with court fees and temporary suspension of the meeting decision were also refused. The act did not examine the decision’s validity on the merits. XX alleged that the meeting lacked the required composition for decision-making. Its decisions included resuming court proceedings against XX. XX asked for the decision to be set aside, suspended pending the dispute, and for exemption from the fee. The ruling does not describe objections from the association. The court had earlier required defects in the claim to be remedied and explained that this question must be addressed by application in special non-contentious proceedings. The documents did not identify all affected persons. The court required a proper application and payment of 50 euros, or clarification of the assistance request. On 16 April, XX provided proof of paying 50 euros but did not remedy the other defects. The court therefore found that the application did not allow consideration with all necessary persons and refused admission. The interim protection request also remained unclarified and its separate 50 euro fee unpaid. The court refused it too. Fee assistance was not granted because, after refusal to admit the main application, no procedural action requiring a fee remained. The applicant’s own costs were left to the applicant; no sums were reimbursable to other participants. The court explained the right to request refund of the fee separately, but did not order repayment in the operative part.

Outcome of this decision

Refuse to admit the application to set aside the meeting decision. Refuse procedural assistance and interim protection. The applicant bears costs; no sums are reimbursable to other participants.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
4. Leave procedural costs to the applicant. There are no reimbursable procedural costs.
First instance
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 2-16-123Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 19 korteriühistu · 80021192

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

How it started · editorial summary

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

Related prepared acts from this case are also shown.

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

Separate act page

Members convening a meeting after the board missed its deadline

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Kangelaste pr 19 korteriühistu · 80021192

Entry into force has not been reverified

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

How it started · editorial summary

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

The dispute and the court’s decision

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

Outcome of this decision

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

A checked extract in this language is not yet available.

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

Separate act page

Kangelaste pr 19: meeting decision upheld and challenge dismissed

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ Kangelaste pr 19 · 80021192

Entry into force has not been reverified

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

How it started · editorial summary

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

The dispute and the court’s decision

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

Outcome of this decision

Leave the judgment of 27 July 2016 unchanged and dismiss the appeal. XX bears appeal costs; the association is awarded 280 euros. The meeting decision of 21 December 2015 was not set aside.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Dismiss the appeal.
Appeal
Case 2-15-11354Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 42 korteriühistu · 80054903

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeQuorum and repeat meetings

How it started · editorial summary

A repeat meeting also required notice under the charter.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-11354/18Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Notice period for a repeat meeting

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Tallinna mnt 42 · 80054903

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — owner XX; defendant — KÜ Tallinna mnt 42

How it started · editorial summary

A repeat meeting also required notice under the charter.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Tallinna mnt 42 (now — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 42 korteriühistu). XX challenged point 5 of KÜ Tallinna mnt 42’s meeting decision of 7 May 2015 confirming decisions from 2002–2014. The first meeting failed for lack of a quorum. The charter required a repeat meeting within a month and 14 days’ notice. The court rejected the argument that the monthly limit allowed a meeting even the next day: the notice period still applied. The challenged point was declared void, meaning legally ineffective. The alternative request to set aside the same point was refused because the primary remedy had already been granted. The lawfulness of every earlier decision was not determined separately. Costs remained with the parties, who waived appeal.

Outcome of this decision

Challenged point declared void; alternative request refused and costs left with the parties.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. Leave procedural costs with the parties themselves.
First instance