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 2-25-19226Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu · 80069939

Damage and insuranceLeaks and floodingCause and proof of damageAmount of compensationInsurance payment and insurer’s claimWater and seweragePipes, risers and sewerage

How it started · editorial summary

The court established leakage from a common system and the claim transferred to the insurer.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-25-19226/5Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 32: reimbursement of insured water damage

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

AB “Lietuvos draudimas“ · AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ Eesti filiaal · Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu · 110051834 · 12831829 · 80069939

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant and insurer — AB “Lietuvos draudimas“ through AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ Eesti filiaal; person concerned — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The court established leakage from a common system and the claim transferred to the insurer.

The dispute and the court’s decision

AB “Lietuvos draudimas“, through its Estonian branch, sought reimbursement from Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu of 1964 euros paid for water damage and late-payment interest. The association submitted no position, but the court examined evidence of insurance, payment, causation and the amount of damage. The water came from a defective common system: piping and a towel dryer installed by the association. Location inside an individual apartment does not exclude common ownership. The court found a breach of the maintenance duty and a causal link to the damage; no evidence excusing the breach was provided. Insurance payment transferred the owner’s claim to the insurer. The estimate established restoration costs; the mentioned equipment costs were outside the claim. The award was 1964 euros in damages and 117.42 euros in late-payment interest for 23 October 2025 to 25 May 2026, totalling 2081.42 euros. From 26 May 2026 statutory late-payment interest runs on principal until payment. A further 575 euros in costs was awarded with statutory late-payment interest from finality of the order quantifying costs until performance. Payment by the association was not established.

Outcome of this decision

The association was ordered to pay 2081.42 euros in damages and accrued late-payment interest, further late-payment interest on principal, and 575 euros in costs with separate late-payment interest.

A checked extract in this language is not yet available.

First instance
Case 2-23-1406Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kraavi tn 14 korteriühistu · 80280195

Water and seweragePipes, risers and sewerageDamage and insuranceLeaks and floodingCause and proof of damageAmount of compensationInsurance payment and insurer’s claim

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer brought a transferred claim concerning a blockage in shared drainage; the association denied breach and pointed to a possible cause inside an apartment.

· Ruling on a damages demandViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-23-1406/7Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kraavi tn 14: liability for a blockage in shared drainage

Ruling on a damages demand · Viru Maakohus · First instance

AB “Lietuvos draudimas“ · AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ Eesti filiaal · Narva linn, Kraavi tn 14 korteriühistu · 110051834 · 12831829 · 80280195

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant, insurer — AB “Lietuvos draudimas“ through its Estonian branch AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ Eesti filiaal; interested person — Narva linn, Kraavi tn 14 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer brought a transferred claim concerning a blockage in shared drainage; the association denied breach and pointed to a possible cause inside an apartment.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Insurer AB “Lietuvos draudimas“, acting through its Estonian branch, sought reimbursement from Narva linn, Kraavi tn 14 korteriühistu of 1876 euros paid for apartment damage in flooding on 11 June 2022, plus interest and costs. It attributed the incident to a blockage in shared drainage and inadequate system maintenance. The association objected that pipes were sound and a foreign object or equipment inside an individual apartment, for which the owner was responsible, might have caused the blockage. It cited a later pipe survey and sought reduced compensation if necessary. The insurer replied that no particular object or owner action had been proved and several apartments were flooded. The court found a blockage in the shared sewer pipe itself. Inspection reports, photographs and explanations did not substantiate faulty individual equipment, and water entering through it did not mean the blockage originated there. A survey conducted much later showed pipe condition on another date, not proper inspection and cleaning before the incident. The association did not prove necessary measures or excusability of the breach. After payment, the owner’s claim passed to the applicant. The court found damage, causation and the association’s liability for maintaining common property proved. It refused to reduce compensation: victim contribution and exceptional unfairness of full compensation were not proved. On 3 July 2025, it awarded 1876 euros and 27,66 euros in interest as of 26 January 2023. Although its calculation produced higher interest, it stayed within the amount claimed. Under the operative part, further statutory interest runs from 27 January 2023 until payment. It also awarded 712 euros in costs, comprising 662 euros for legal assistance and a 50 euro fee, with interest on costs from entry into force.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the application: award 1876 euros in damages, 27,66 euros in accrued late-payment interest, further statutory late-payment interest from 27.01.2023, 712 euros in costs and late-payment interest on costs from entry into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Grant AB “Lietuvos draudimas“’s application for damages against Narva linn, Kraavi tn 14 korteriühistu.
First instance
Case 2-22-13958Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Uusküla tn 9 korteriühistu · 80180269

Water and seweragePipes, risers and sewerageDamage and insuranceLeaks and floodingCause and proof of damageAmount of compensationInsurance payment and insurer’s claim

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer sought reimbursement for a pipe rupture first from two owners XX, then alternatively from the Uusküla tn 9 association.

· Ruling granting the insurer’s demandViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-13958/16Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Uusküla tn 9 association ordered to reimburse 2 500 euros for a shared riser rupture

Ruling granting the insurer’s demand · Viru Maakohus · First instance

AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ · AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ Eesti filiaal · Narva, Uusküla tn 9 korteriühistu · 110051834 · 12831829 · 80180269

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant – AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ through its Estonian branch; two interested individuals XX – proceedings against them terminated; interested person – Narva, Uusküla tn 9 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer sought reimbursement for a pipe rupture first from two owners XX, then alternatively from the Uusküla tn 9 association.

The dispute and the court’s decision

AB „Lietuvos draudimas“, acting through its Estonian branch, initially sought 2 500 euros in insurance compensation paid for water damage on 26 June 2022 from two owners XX. The owners objected that the damaged pipe was shared property within the association’s responsibility. In August 2024, the insurer brought an alternative demand against Narva, Uusküla tn 9 korteriühistu. The association admitted the incident’s circumstances and agreed that the application should be granted: a shared hot-water riser had ruptured. The insurer then waived its demands against the individuals. The court accepted the waiver and ended proceedings concerning both owners; this is the procedural result of waiver, rather than a separate ruling that no possible owner liability existed. The court examined the demand against the association on its merits. It established that the pipe formed part of the shared system, the association’s duty to monitor its condition and keep it working, a link between breach and insured property damage, and payment of 2 500 euros. The rupture supported a presumption of breach of the maintenance duty; the association neither rebutted it nor proved the breach excusable. Following insurance payment, the corresponding claim passed to the insurer. The association was ordered to pay 2 500 euros and statutory late-payment interest from 27 August 2024. Of 594 euros claimed in costs, 512 euros was awarded: a 50-euro fee and 462 euros for assistance, excluding steps before the demand was made against the association. Interest on costs was also awarded after finality. The two owners’ costs were imposed on the insurer, but no specific reimbursement was set because they supplied no statement.

Outcome of this decision

Accept waiver of the application against two individuals XX and terminate proceedings concerning them. Grant the demand against the association: award 2 500 euros, statutory interest from 27.08.2024 until payment, and 512 euros in costs with interest after finality. Impose the individuals’ costs on the insurer, leaving the amount undetermined because reimbursement was not requested.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Grant the application by AB „Lietuvos draudimas“, through its Eesti filiaal, against Narva, Uusküla tn 9 korteriühistu for damages.
First instance
Case 2-20-5099Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 2 korteriühistu · 80158614

Damage and insuranceLeaks and floodingInsurance payment and insurer’s claimWater and seweragePipes, risers and sewerageApartment association bills, payments and debtsLimitation of claims

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer sought compensation for 2014 damage from owner XX or alternatively from the Pähklimäe tn 2 association; both pleaded limitation.

· Court orderViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-20-5099/30Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Pähklimäe tn 2: limitation of an insurer’s claim after water damage

Court order · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ · AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ Eesti filiaal · Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 2 korteriühistu · 110051834 · 12831829 · 80158614

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ through its Estonian branch; Person concerned, owner — XX; Person concerned — Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 2 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer sought compensation for 2014 damage from owner XX or alternatively from the Pähklimäe tn 2 association; both pleaded limitation.

The dispute and the court’s decision

AB „Lietuvos draudimas“, acting through its Estonian branch, sought reimbursement of an insurance payment from owner XX or alternatively from Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 2 korteriühistu. The claim concerned water damage on 12 January 2014 and a broken inlet valve that the insurer considered common property. Statutory late-payment interest from 31 January 2023 and costs were also sought. Both respondents pleaded limitation and disputed responsibility. The insurer argued that payment transferred the injured owner’s statutory claim, subject to a ten-year period. The owner also relied on preventive measures taken, while the association denied breaching its duties. The court agreed that the claim did not arise from the insurance contract. However, transfer preserved the injured owner’s legal position in relation to the association. The court treated those relations as analogous to transactions and applied a three-year, rather than ten-year, limitation period. It linked commencement to payment on 30 January 2014, expiry to 30 January 2017 and filing to 3 April 2020. The application against both respondents was therefore dismissed. The court also discussed conditions for compensation involving common property, but limitation was the decisive ground. The insurer bears costs; their amount is to be determined separately after entry into force of the principal ruling.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss the application against owner XX and the Pähklimäe tn 2 association. Order AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ to bear costs, to be quantified separately after the principal ruling enters into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Dismiss the application of AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ Eesti filiaal against XX and Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 2 korteriühistu for compensation for damage.
First instance
Case 2-23-2145Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu · 80183173

Water and seweragePipes, risers and sewerageDamage and insuranceLeaks and floodingCause and proof of damageAmount of compensationInsurance payment and insurer’s claimApartment association bills, payments and debtsLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer obtained an award for reimbursement of compensation paid for apartment damage. The court linked the damage to the condition of a shared water riser under the association’s management.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-23-2145/3Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

A. Puškini tn 65: association ordered to reimburse insurer for a shared riser leak

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu · AB Lietuvos draudimas · 80183173 · 110051834

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — AB Lietuvos draudimas, insurer; interested person — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu; owner XX — recipient of the insurance payment; insurer’s representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer obtained an award for reimbursement of compensation paid for apartment damage. The court linked the damage to the condition of a shared water riser under the association’s management.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court awarded AB Lietuvos draudimas 596 euros in damages and interest against the apartment association Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65. It linked the apartment damage to a leak in the shared water riser whose condition the association was obliged to monitor. The insurer compensated owner XX for ceiling damage after the leak and brought the transferred claim against the association for the amount paid. Evidence included the policy, damage notice, photographs, inspection report, repair estimate and payment order. The association received court materials but did not respond or object within the deadline. The court found the source of the water in the shared riser. Ordinary upkeep and repair of that part of the building are performed through the association. It found the riser’s condition improper and causation proved: if properly maintained, water would not have entered the insured apartment. The association supplied no evidence rebutting those findings or justifying breach of duty. The decision rests on assessment of the materials, not merely the absence of a response. The ruling of 3 March 2023 awarded 596 euros in compensation, 38 euros in accrued interest and further statutory interest on 596 euros from 8 February 2023 until performance. The insurer also sought the costs of applying to court. The court reduced reimbursable representative time: the case did not require the three and a half hours claimed. It awarded 290 euros in costs, comprising a 50 euro fee and 240 euros in legal assistance, with statutory interest after entry into force. The award does not confirm that the association has already transferred those sums.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the insurer’s application. Award 596 euros in damages, 38 euros in accrued interest and statutory interest on 596 euros from 08.02.2023 until performance against the association. Allocate costs to it; award 290 euros and statutory interest on costs after entry into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Order Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu to pay AB “Lietuvos draudimas“ 596 euros in damages and 38 euros in late-payment interest that has fallen due.
First instance
Case 2-17-5112Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Rahu tn 28a korteriühistu · 80158560

Damage and insuranceLeaks and floodingCause and proof of damageInsurance payment and insurer’s claimWater and seweragePipes, risers and sewerageAccess for inspection and repairAmount of compensation

How it started · editorial summary

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

Related prepared acts from this case are also shown.

· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohtu tsiviilkolleegium · Appeal · № 2-17-5112/13Read act

Separate act page

Rahu 28A: a leaking riser and the association’s response to denied access

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohtu tsiviilkolleegium · Appeal

AAS BTA Baltic Insurance Company Eesti filiaal · KORTERIÜHISTU RAHU 28A · 11223507 · 80158560

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and appellant — AAS BTA Baltic Insurance Company Eesti filiaal; defendant — KORTERIÜHISTU RAHU 28A

How it started · editorial summary

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

The dispute and the court’s decision

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.

Outcome of this decision

The dismissal was reversed and the case remitted to the preliminary stage; breach and the amount of loss remain to be established.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Allow the appeal in part.
Appeal
· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-5112/26Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Rahu 28a: association ordered to pay insurer 1 218,79 euros

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

AAS BTA Baltic Insurance Company Eesti filiaal · Narva linn, Rahu tn 28a korteriühistu · 11223507 · 80158560

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – AAS BTA Baltic Insurance Company Eesti filiaal; Defendant – Narva linn, Rahu tn 28a korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

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

The dispute and the court’s decision

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.

Outcome of this decision

Award the insurer 1 218,79 euros in damages and 425 euros in litigation costs against the association. The association bears its own costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Grant the claim.
First instance
Case 2-17-10653Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 33 korteriühistu · 80082986

Water and seweragePipes, risers and sewerageRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairsContracts and servicesWorks contracts and designApartment association meetings and decisions

How it started · editorial summary

The circuit court examined the reopening application instead of leaving it unexamined, but found no grounds to reopen the case.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-10653/23Read act

Separate act page

Non-attendance: an association dispute left unexamined

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 33 korteriühistu · 80082986

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — XX; Defendant — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 33 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

After XX did not attend, the claim against the association was left unexamined. The appellate court later changed only the ruling on restoration: it examined and refused that request without deciding the meeting-resolution dispute on its merits.

The dispute and the court’s decision

XX sued Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 33 korteriühistu, formerly Korteriühistu Punane Maja, to invalidate meeting resolutions of 10.05.2017. The preserved subsequent order states that the disputed resolutions concerned a contract to replace water pipes, requiring owners to provide telephone numbers, and a contract for legal services. After XX and their representative did not attend, the court granted the association’s request to leave the claim unexamined. XX objected that the representative had not received a separate summons and the case could not be disposed of this way. The court found that XX had personally received the summons before notifying a new representative. Documents, including the summons, were then made available to the representative electronically. The court considered notice proper. The hearing record confirmed the association’s request, so the court had not acted of its own initiative. No sufficient excuse for absence or request to hear the case without XX was established. The objection was rejected. The restoration request was left unexamined as filed before a written order and its service. The claim itself was also left unexamined, not dismissed on its merits. Costs were imposed on XX, to be fixed separately. Later, on 3 September 2018, Tartu Ringkonnakohus changed only the ruling on the request to restore proceedings: the request had to be examined, but was refused. The claim remained unexamined, the other parts of the order were upheld, and XX bears the appeal costs.

Outcome of this decision

Initially, the procedural objection was refused and the restoration request and claim were left unexamined. On 3 September 2018, Tartu Ringkonnakohus changed only the restoration ruling: the request was examined but refused. The other parts of the order, including leaving the claim unexamined, were upheld. XX bears appeal costs; the substantive validity of the meeting resolutions was not decided.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Leave XX’s application of 17 May 2018 to restore proceedings unexamined.
First instance
· RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-17-10653/27Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 33: reopening application examined, but case not reopened

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 33 korteriühistu · 80082986

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and appellant — XX; Defendant — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 33 korteriühistu (also called Korteriühistu Punane Maja)

How it started · editorial summary

The circuit court examined the reopening application instead of leaving it unexamined, but found no grounds to reopen the case.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Tartu Ringkonnakohus changed the procedural outcome but did not reopen XX’s case against Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 33 korteriühistu. Instead of leaving the reopening application unexamined, it examined and rejected it. The main claim remained unexamined. The claimant challenged meeting decisions of 10 May 2017 on replacing water pipes using an unnamed company, owners providing telephone numbers, and a contract with a lawyer. The court initially granted the claim by default but reopened proceedings after the association applied to set aside the default judgment (kaja). The claimant and representative then failed to attend the hearing on 15 May 2018. At the association’s request, the court left the claim unexamined. The claimant requested reopening, arguing that the representative had not been sent a separate summons and therefore did not know about the hearing. The claimant also denied that the association had requested leaving the claim unexamined. The association opposed the appeal, arguing among other things that it was late. The circuit court found that the summons was sent to the claimant before the court was notified of the representative. The claimant received it personally, and on the day the representative notified the court of their authority, the representative obtained electronic access to all materials, including the summons. In those circumstances, the court did not have to send the same summons again. The association’s request to leave the claim unexamined was recorded in the minutes. The claimant did not substantiate a valid reason for absence or an inability to report it in time. However, the court found it wrong to refuse to examine the reopening application merely because it had been filed before the ruling was put in writing: the participant already knew the decision announced at the hearing. It remedied the defect itself, examined the application and refused reopening. The remainder was upheld and appeal costs allocated to the claimant; the county court will determine the amount separately. The meeting decisions’ validity was not determined on the merits by this ruling.

Outcome of this decision

Set aside the ruling of 25 May 2018 only insofar as it left the reopening application unexamined. Issue a new ruling in that part refusing reopening. Uphold the remainder; XX bears appeal costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. Uphold the county court’s ruling in all other respects.
Appeal
Case 2-17-11161Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Soldina tn 10 korteriühistu · 80170667

Water and seweragePipes, risers and sewerageAccess for inspection and repair

How it started · editorial summary

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

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-11161/16Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Tiimani 10: court approved removal of panels to access water pipes

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KORTERIÜHISTU TIIMANI 10 · 80170667

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – KORTERIÜHISTU TIIMANI 10; Defendant – XX

How it started · editorial summary

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

The dispute and the court’s decision

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.

Outcome of this decision

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.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
III. The parties shall bear their own litigation costs not specified in the settlement.
First instance
Case 2-14-56170Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 7 korteriühistu · 80183693

Water and seweragePipes, risers and sewerageHeatingTemperature and heating qualityRepairs and shared propertyAlterations to layouts and shared propertyDamage and insurance

How it started · editorial summary

Later termination of representation did not change the appeal deadline.

Related prepared acts from this case are also shown.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-14-56170/58Read act

Separate act page

Limitation of a claim to restore a hot-water return pipe

Judgment · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

KÜ Pähklimäe 7/11 · 80183693

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: XX — claimant, owner; Association — defendant

How it started · editorial summary

The outcome rests on limitation rather than a merits decision that removing the pipe was lawful.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Pähklimäe 7/11 (now — Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 7 korteriühistu). XX sought a declaration that removal of a pipe was unlawful and an order requiring KÜ Pähklimäe 7/11 to restore it. As clarified, the claim concerned a hot-water return pipe rather than a heating pipe. XX linked the 2008 works to a fall in indoor temperature noticed in January 2009. On the association’s objection, the court applied a three-year limitation period from knowledge of the damage and responsible party. The claim filed in August 2014 was time-barred, with no interruption or suspension established.

Outcome of this decision

The claim was dismissed as time-barred; no restoration was ordered. This did not decide that the reconstruction was lawful on the merits. XX bears costs, with their amount and recovery for the state reserved for separate orders.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Dismiss the claim.
First instance
· Court orderTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-14-56170/70Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Appeal period after service on a representative

Court order · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ Pähklimäe 7/11 · 80183693

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and appellant — XX; defendant — KÜ Pähklimäe 7/11

How it started · editorial summary

Later termination of representation did not change the appeal deadline.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Pähklimäe 7/11 (now — Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 7 korteriühistu). XX appealed the decision of 13 November 2015 concerning damages against KÜ Pähklimäe 7/11. The circuit court refused to admit the appeal as late. The decision was served on an authorised representative on 16 November; time began the following day and expired at 24:00 on 16 December, at the end of that day, while the appeal arrived on 17 December. Subsequent termination of the representative’s authority did not alter the deadline. The appeal was returned and deemed not filed. No deadline was set to pay the missing fee because refusal of admission would require its refund. The damages claim was not decided on its merits; the type and cause of damage are not disclosed.

Outcome of this decision

Appeal refused admission and returned as out of time.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Refuse to admit the appeal of XX […]
Appeal
Case 2-14-7448Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 17 korteriühistu · 80054102

Damage and insuranceLeaks and floodingCause and proof of damageAmount of compensationInsurance payment and insurer’s claimWater and seweragePipes, risers and sewerage

How it started · editorial summary

The court granted Salva Kindlustuse AS’s claim against the apartment association DAUMANI 17, awarding 2 213,90 euros for insurance compensation paid and 200 euros in court fees.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-7448/7Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Association ordered to pay insurer 2 213,90 euros for damage from a shared riser

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Salva Kindlustuse AS · DAUMANI 17 KORTERIÜHISTU · 10284984 · 80054102

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant Salva Kindlustuse AS – paid the insurance compensation.; Defendant DAUMANI 17 KORTERIÜHISTU – found liable for the damage.; Owner XX – recipient of the insurance payment, not named as a party to the claim.

How it started · editorial summary

The court granted Salva Kindlustuse AS’s claim against the apartment association DAUMANI 17, awarding 2 213,90 euros for insurance compensation paid and 200 euros in court fees.

The dispute and the court’s decision

On 19 November 2012, a hot-water system failure damaged the interior finishes of an insured apartment. The insurer paid owner XX 2 213,90 euros and sought that sum from the association, relying on its duty to maintain the shared system. The parties did not dispute the incident or the insurance payment. The association objected that the insurer had been notified late, the repair amount needed expert assessment, the works did not match the damage, and the cause of the pipe rupture had not been proved. It considered the failure accidental and denied liability. The court linked liability to the association’s duty to keep shared building systems in working order and noted that the owner’s claim had passed to the insurer to the extent of the insurance payment. The association knew about the incident and damage, including through the certificate it had issued on 21 November 2012. The late-notification objection was rejected: the cited provision allowed the insurer to reduce or refuse payment, but did not require refusal. The law did not require damage to be assessed exclusively by an expert opinion. The association had not specified which works it disputed or on what grounds. The court placed on it the burden of proving circumstances that could exclude liability for the system’s condition. The claim was granted in full. In addition to 2 213,90 euros, the court awarded 200 euros in court fees and imposed all costs on the association. This is an award to the insurer; the judgment does not establish actual payment.

Outcome of this decision

Order the apartment association DAUMANI 17 to pay Salva Kindlustuse AS 2 213,90 euros to reimburse the insurance payment and 200 euros in court fees. All costs are borne by the defendant.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. The defendant shall bear all litigation costs.
First instance