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.

Related prepared acts from this case are also shown.

· 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 2-23-8817Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 27 korteriühistu · 80025238

Parking and groundsAllocation of parking spacesBarriers, permits and accessUse of shared landParking chargesApartment association meetings and decisionsVoting and representation

How it started · editorial summary

Owner XX obtained nullity of two parking decisions. The court linked the result to specific restrictions on owners’ rights, rather than a ban on all parking control.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-23-8817/10Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kangelaste prospekt 27: decisions on parking restrictions declared void

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 27 korteriühistu · AS Ühisteenused · 80025238 ·

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant XX – owner; interested person – Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 27 korteriühistu; applicant’s representative XX; association representative XX; AS Ühisteenused – operator named in the meeting decision

How it started · editorial summary

Owner XX obtained nullity of two parking decisions. The court linked the result to specific restrictions on owners’ rights, rather than a ban on all parking control.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court declared two parking decisions of the apartment association Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 27 without legal effect from adoption. In this case, restrictions affected the owners’ own right to use shared grounds and required their agreement, which was absent. Owner XX challenged approval of parking rules on 30 April 2019 and the decision of 17 April 2023 on enforcement of them. The rules provided one card per apartment, restricted parking without a card and some vehicle types, and allowed termination of the right of use. AS Ühisteenused was chosen to supervise for 30 euros per month, with the ability to demand contractual penalties. The association considered control arrangements ordinary building management approvable by majority. It relied on the applicant using a parking card and not challenging the earlier decision in time. It acknowledged that some restrictions required agreement but proposed retaining the rest. The court explained that an operator contract or card system may in themselves be ordinary management. Here, however, the rules restricted owners as well as outside vehicles: not all received cards, cardless parking was limited to an hour, and extra charges and penalties were provided. The court assessed the combined conditions as a substantial change in use of shared parking for which a meeting majority was insufficient. The 2019 rules were adopted as a single document, so the court did not preserve individual parts. The applicant’s card and earlier voting did not remove nullity. The alternative invalidation demand was not separately considered because the disputed decisions already lacked legal effect from adoption. The ruling of 13 March 2025 declared item 9 of the 2019 meeting decision and item 5 of the 2023 decision void. It awarded 1 071,40 euros in costs against the association with statutory interest after finality. Claimed costs were reduced because some representative time was excessive.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the application. Declare item 9 of the decision of 30.04.2019 approving parking rules and item 5 of the decision of 17.04.2023 organising supervision void. The association bears all costs; award applicant XX 1 071,40 euros and statutory interest on it from finality until performance.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
4. Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 27 korteriühistu shall bear all litigation costs.
First instance
Case 2-22-9792Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu · 80183173

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

How it started · editorial summary

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

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

Separate act page

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

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

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu · 80183173

Entry into force has not been reverified

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

How it started · editorial summary

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

The dispute and the court’s decision

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

Outcome of this decision

Accept withdrawal of the declaration claim and end that part. Dismiss the information claim because the filing deadline had passed. Award 1430.56* euros in costs against XX, with late-payment interest from entry into force until payment.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Dismiss XX’s application to obtain information from Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu and inspect documents.
First instance
Case 2-22-670Source: 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 2-21-10232Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

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

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

How it started · editorial summary

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

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

Separate act page

Written voting on an association’s report and management plan

Court order · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

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

Entry into force has not been reverified

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

How it started · editorial summary

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

The dispute and the court’s decision

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

Outcome of this decision

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

A checked extract in this language is not yet available.

First instance
Case 2-21-6288Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12 korteriühistu · 80175498

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeVoting and representationBudget, management plan and ratesDocuments and informationInspection and copies of documentsReporting and review of expenditureApartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the boardRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairsParking and groundsConstruction of parking facilities

How it started · editorial summary

Nine applicants XX challenged the apartment association Kangelaste prospekt 12 written decisions for 2021; the association denied breaches.

· Ruling leaving an application unexaminedViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-21-6288/16Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Dispute over Kangelaste prospekt 12 decisions left unexamined after renewed confirmation

Ruling leaving an application unexamined · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12 korteriühistu · 80175498

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicants XX – nine individuals; interested person – Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

Nine applicants XX challenged the apartment association Kangelaste prospekt 12 written decisions for 2021; the association denied breaches.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Nine applicants XX sought a declaration that the Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12 korteriühistu decisions of 22 February 2021 were void, meaning without legal effect from adoption, or alternatively their invalidation. The written vote concerned accounts, management and repair plans, video surveillance, parking and board elections. The applicants relied on one participant not receiving drafts, deficiencies in financial documents and breaches of candidate nomination procedure. The association objected that drafts were sent, papers were made available for inspection, accounts had been checked and alternative candidates received insufficient votes. The court did not decide these disagreements on their merits. Register data showed that the general meeting of 15 March 2022 had confirmed the 2021 decisions. The court found no information that the new decision had been challenged. It asked the applicants to explain their continuing personal legal interest in review of the former vote and substantiate invalidation. No response arrived in time. The court considered that the old decisions’ legal effects could no longer be removed by this application: the same provisions applied under the new, unchallenged decision. The applicants explained no other independent interest. The application was therefore left unexamined. This is not a judicial finding that the original procedure was lawful or a rejection of nullity arguments on their merits. Each participant bears its own costs, which the court did not quantify. The court clarified the challenged decisions’ date from the minutes as 22 February, although applicants initially gave 14 February 2021.

Outcome of this decision

Leave the application to declare the decisions of 22.02.2021 void or invalidate them unexamined. Leave costs with the participants who incurred them, without quantification.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. The participants shall bear their own litigation costs. Given this allocation, the court will not quantify them.
First instance
Case 2-23-11384Source: 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 2-20-10704Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 18 korteriühistu · 80015336

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

How it started · editorial summary

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

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

Separate act page

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

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, A. Daumani tn 18 korteriühistu · 80015336

Entry into force has not been reverified

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

How it started · editorial summary

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

The dispute and the court’s decision

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

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss the association’s appeal and uphold the first-instance ruling. Allocate appeal costs to the association.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Dismiss Narva linna, A. Daumani tn 18 korteriühistu’s appeal against the ruling and uphold the Viru Maakohus ruling of 30 April 2021.
Appeal
Case 2-20-5373Source: 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 2-17-16823Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu · 80183301

Parking and groundsUse of shared landConstruction of parking facilitiesApartment association meetings and decisionsVoting and representation

How it started · editorial summary

Refusal to declare the parking decision void was upheld; land-use arrangements were not decided separately.

Related prepared acts from this case are also shown.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-17-16823/35Read act

Separate act page

Parking on green space: limits of a meeting resolution

Judgment · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu · 80183301

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — XX; Defendant — Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

XX sought nullity of a resolution to arrange parking behind the building. The court refused and stressed that the wording did not itself decide to build a parking area.

The dispute and the court’s decision

XX challenged the 13.04.2016 resolution of Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu to arrange parking on green space behind the building. XX considered it a material change in the shared land’s purpose requiring all owners’ consent. The association regarded resident parking as ordinary use. The court addressed nullity specifically and found no convening defect or other applicable ground. A possible breach of shared-property management rules did not itself make the resolution void. A separate claim for invalidation on other grounds was not determined here. Nor did the court find that the wording already meant construction of a parking area: paving, tree removal or other specific works were not identified. The materials did not prove a material change of purpose. The claim was dismissed and costs imposed on XX, with their amount to be determined separately. The act is not permission for any works and does not allocate individual parking spaces.

Outcome of this decision

The claim to declare the 13.04.2016 resolution void was dismissed. The court did not find that construction had already been approved. XX bears their own and the association’s costs, the latter to be fixed separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Dismiss XX’s claim against Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu to declare the general meeting resolution of 13.04.2016 void.
First instance
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-17-16823/53Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Kerese 6: meeting decision on parking not declared void

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; Defendant – Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

Refusal to declare the parking decision void was upheld; land-use arrangements were not decided separately.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Tartu Ringkonnakohus dismissed XX’s appeal and upheld the refusal to declare the Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu meeting decision of 13 April 2016 void. Nullity would mean no legal effect from adoption; that specific demand was not granted. The meeting decided to organise car parking on the green area behind the building. The claimant considered this construction of a car park involving tree felling and concreting, requiring all owners’ consent. She also relied on the lack of the necessary quorum. The association objected that organising parking was ordinary use of the land around the building and could be decided by majority. The circuit court considered that the wording adopted was not yet a decision to build a car park and substantially alter the intended use of shared property. The claimant had not demonstrated grounds for nullity under the provisions on general meeting decisions. The court also stated that breach of co-owner consent rules does not itself make a meeting decision void. The circuit court nevertheless corrected one first-instance argument. A court may and must check whether a statutory prohibition making the decision void was breached; it cannot confine itself to the label given to the demand. In this case, however, that examination did not change the outcome. The claimant had not brought a demand against the other owners to determine arrangements for use of the shared land, including tree felling. The first-instance costs allocation was upheld, and appeal costs were imposed on the claimant. The county court will quantify them separately. The judgment concerns the specific meeting wording and ground of nullity raised; no separate demand on land-use arrangements was determined here.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss XX’s appeal and leave the Viru Maakohus judgment of 8 June 2018 unchanged. Retain the previous costs allocation; the claimant bears appeal costs, to be quantified by the county court.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Leave the Viru Maakohus judgment of 8 June 2018 unchanged.
Appeal