Narva apartment associations Court decisions

Denied access required examination of the association’s further steps to maintain the common riser.

KORTERIÜHISTU RAHU 28A (now — Narva linn, Rahu tn 28a korteriühistu). AAS BTA Baltic Insurance Company Eesti filiaal sought reimbursement of 1218 euros and 79 cents paid for water damage from KORTERIÜHISTU RAHU 28A. The parties did not dispute the leak from a valve on the common hot-water riser or the insurance payment. The association relied on owner XX having denied access during earlier repairs and disputed the amount of loss. The first-instance court dismissed the claim. The appellate court reversed and remitted the case to the preliminary stage. Having no right to enter without consent does not itself establish compliance with all duties to maintain common property. Further measures needed examination, including convening a meeting, taking decisions or other steps to address denied access. Failure to act may give rise to liability; the first-instance court also failed to justify excusing a possible breach. Important documents required Estonian translations even in simplified proceedings. The parties must have an opportunity to present evidence with the burden of proof properly allocated. If a breach is established, the compensation claim could have passed to the insurer following payment; association liability does not exclude liability of an owner who breached duties. The amount of loss had not been assessed and requires examination. The appeal was allowed in part; the first-instance court will allocate costs according to the new outcome.

The dismissal was reversed and the case remitted to the preliminary stage; breach and the amount of loss remain to be established.

The insurer’s claim was granted; the judgment copy contains an operative part without circumstances or reasons.

Viru Maakohus granted the claim by AAS BTA Baltic Insurance Company Eesti filiaal against Narva linn, Rahu tn 28a korteriühistu and awarded the insurer 1 218,79 euros in damages. It also awarded 425 euros in litigation costs against the association, which must bear its own costs as well. The judgment was made under the simplified procedure and gives the result without an account of the circumstances or reasons. The operative part describes recovery as a recourse claim: the insurer’s demand to be reimbursed for the damage amount. The text does not show what happened, what evidence was examined or what the association argued in response. The specific basis for its liability is therefore not set out here. The court did not grant separate leave to appeal but explained that an appeal was possible for substantial and clear errors in law or assessment of evidence. A participant first had to notify the court of an intention to appeal within ten days of service of the operative part. The court would then supplement the judgment with an account of the circumstances and reasons. The judgment does not establish actual payment of the awarded sums.

Award the insurer 1 218,79 euros in damages and 425 euros in litigation costs against the association. The association bears its own costs.

XX must remove wall panels to allow completion of pipe replacement; the association provided for compensation for possible damage from necessary work.

The court approved the settlement between KORTERIÜHISTU TIIMANI 10 and XX and terminated the case concerning access to water pipes. XX undertook to remove wall panels within ten days after the ruling becomes final so that the association could complete pipe replacement in the section of the system specified in the agreement. The association had sought a court order securing that access. The ruling does not set out the initial objections or reasons for the dispute in detail. On 11 January 2018, the parties submitted agreed terms for approval. The court checked their permissibility and approved the agreement. XX bears the costs of removing the panels and other expenses of providing access to the system. The association, for its part, guaranteed compensation for possible damage during necessary pipe replacement work under the Apartment Ownership and Apartment Associations Act provision cited in the agreement. This ruling does not determine the amount of possible damage. XX must also pay the association 362,50 euros in litigation costs by 31 January 2018: 150 euros, half the court fee, and 212,50 euros, half the legal expenses. Each participant bears its other costs. The court ordered a further 150 euros in court fees refunded to the association from the state budget after the ruling becomes final. It explained the possibility of enforcing the agreement, but this ruling does not confirm actual completion of the works or payments.

Approve the agreement: XX removes panels to provide water-pipe access within ten days after the ruling becomes final and bears access costs. The association guarantees the agreed compensation for possible damage from necessary work. XX pays the association 362,50 euros in costs by 31 January 2018. Terminate the case; each bears its other costs, and a further 150 euros in court fees is refunded to the association from the state budget after finality.