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 2-22-11087Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 18 korteriühistu · 80015336

Apartment association meetings and decisionsBudget, management plan and ratesArticles of association and amendmentsDocuments and informationReporting and review of expenditureRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairsBasement, stairwell and shared roomsParking and grounds

How it started · editorial summary

Two applicants XX sought to set aside two owners’ decision items concerning accounting review and a management plan.

· Final ruling on an application challenging general meeting decisionsViru Maakohus (Narva) · First instance · № 2-22-11087/67Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kivilinna tn 18: two decisions set aside after reconsideration

Final ruling on an application challenging general meeting decisions · Viru Maakohus (Narva) · First instance

Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 18 korteriühistu · 80015336

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: two applicants — XX; interested person — Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 18 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

Two applicants XX sought to set aside two owners’ decision items concerning accounting review and a management plan.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Two applicants XX challenged items 3 and 4 of Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 18 korteriühistu’s owners’ decision of 31 May 2022. Voting took place without a meeting. Item 3 concerned choosing an accounting organisation to check documents and authorising the board to choose a proposal; item 4 concerned the 2022 management plan. The applicants alleged that transferring control functions conflicted with the articles’ audit committee provision. For the plan, they cited missing mandatory information on common property condition, intended works, reserves and projected service consumption. They also objected to insufficiently justified parking and basement electrical system costs. The act presents these as applicants’ arguments. The first ruling of 9 January 2025 granted the application, but Tartu Ringkonnakohus set it aside and remitted the case. The grounds were breach of the right to be heard and partly insufficient reasoning; the appeal did not end the dispute by finally rejecting the applicants’ claims. On reconsideration the association admitted the claims in full. On 27 August 2025, the court therefore again granted the application and set aside specifically items 3 and 4. This result rests on admission, not a fresh detailed assessment of every objection to the management plan. Of the applicants’ 1150 euros in costs, the agreed 800 euros was allocated to the association. The applicants bear the other 350 euros. Appeal was available within 15 days after service.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the application and set aside items 3 and 4 of the decision of 31.05.2022. Allocate 800 euros in costs to the association, with the remaining 350 euros left to applicants.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Grant the application. […] 2. Set aside items 3 and 4 of Kivilinna tn 18 korteriühistu’s apartment owners’ decision of 31.05.2022.
First instance
Case 2-24-15880Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 17 korteriühistu · 80170377

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesObligations of multiple ownersHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairs

How it started · editorial summary

The court checked the basis of charges and limited the recovery period.

· Court orderViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-24-15880/39Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Proof of charges and joint and several recovery

Court order · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 17 korteriühistu · 80170377

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 17 korteriühistu; three persons concerned XX — jointly and severally liable owners; association representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

The court checked the basis of charges and limited the recovery period.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 17 korteriühistu sought joint and several payment from three persons XX for services, repair-fund contributions, gas-equipment maintenance and heating. This is one common sum, not separate full recovery from each. The court checked the claim despite incomplete responses. Meeting decisions, a management plan, contracts and supplier invoices supported the charges; bills sent to the owner alone are insufficient. Payments were credited. Debt for 1 June 2023–30 April 2025 was proved; debt from May 2025 was not awarded. The application was allowed in part. Of 850 euros sought for legal costs, 300 euros were accepted for proved representative activities; with a 50-euro fee, 350 euros were awarded jointly and severally. Duplicate documents were removed from the file.

Outcome of this decision

Proven debt and 350 euros in costs awarded jointly and severally; later debt not awarded.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Allow the application of Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 17 korteriühistu in part.
First instance
Case 2-24-104626Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12a korteriühistu · 80137948

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesLate-payment interest and consequences of delayHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairs

How it started · editorial summary

After unsuccessful service in payment-order proceedings, the association submitted an amended application and additional evidence of charges; owner XX did not respond.

· Order on an application to recover debtViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-24-104626/17Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kangelaste prospekt 12a: evidence supporting management charges

Order on an application to recover debt · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12a korteriühistu · 80137948

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12a korteriühistu; Person concerned, owner — XX

How it started · editorial summary

After unsuccessful service in payment-order proceedings, the association submitted an amended application and additional evidence of charges; owner XX did not respond.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12a korteriühistu sought management-cost arrears from owner XX for the claimed period. Payment-order proceedings ended because the payment proposal could not be served, and the case went to Viru Maakohus. Documents were later served by public notice through the official publication; the owner filed no response or objections. The court required further evidence for each charge and clarification of repair-fund payments. The association supplied additional reasons, invoices, monthly calculations, its articles, meeting records, servicing contracts and heat-cost documents. The ruling therefore did not merely rely on the absence of a response. The court connected liability to membership, the allocation rules and meeting decisions. It accepted charges for servicing, heating and water circulation, a designated levy and gas-equipment servicing as proved and established the principal debt. On 21 March 2025, it awarded principal, accrued late-payment interest and further statutory late-payment interest until payment. XX was also ordered to pay 571.50 euros in costs, covering state fees, legal work and evidence, with late-payment interest from entry into force. The order requires service by public notice, deemed effective 15 days after publication of the extract. Actual subsequent service and the outcome of any appeal are not established by the text.

Outcome of this decision

Award principal, accrued and further statutory late-payment interest until payment against XX, plus 571.50 euros in costs with late-payment interest from entry into force. Direct service of the order by public notice.

A checked extract in this language is not yet available.

First instance
Case 2-23-147941Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Malmi tn 12 korteriühistu · 80250389

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesRepairs and shared propertyBills and justification of charges

How it started · editorial summary

The court assessed the owner’s objections concerning heated area and repairs.

· Court orderViru Maakohus Jõhvi kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-23-147941/17Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Management charges and heating objections

Court order · Viru Maakohus Jõhvi kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Malmi tn 12 korteriühistu · 80250389

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, Malmi tn 12 korteriühistu; person concerned XX — debtor

How it started · editorial summary

The court assessed the owner’s objections concerning heated area and repairs.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Malmi tn 12 korteriühistu claimed management-charge arrears and late-payment interest from owner XX. XX relied on the lack of a heater in part of the premises and defects in common property. The court examined payments, bills and meeting decisions on tariffs and found the claim proved. Heat from other rooms also reaches the room without a radiator, so it was not excluded from the calculation. Complaints about repairs did not remove the duty to pay management charges and comply with association decisions. Principal, accrued and continuing statutory late-payment interest until performance, and 445* euros in costs were awarded. The order does not establish the current balance or performance.

Outcome of this decision

Claim allowed; debt, late-payment interest and 445* euros in costs awarded.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Allow the application of Narva linn, Malmi tn 12 korteriühistu against XX for management-charge arrears.
First instance
Case 2-21-8475Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Viru tn 20 korteriühistu · 80352766

Damage and insuranceFireAmount of compensationRepairs and shared propertyBasement, stairwell and shared rooms

How it started · editorial summary

The apartment association Viru tn 20 sought restoration costs for a shared stairwell after a fire; Narva linn entered as legal successor to original participant XX.

· Ruling approving a settlement and terminating proceedingsViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-21-8475/27Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Apartment association Viru tn 20 and Narva linn agreed compensation for damage and costs

Ruling approving a settlement and terminating proceedings · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Viru tn 20 korteriühistu · Narva linn · Narva Linnavalitsuse Linnamajandusamet · 80352766 · · 75039729

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, Viru tn 20 korteriühistu; interested person — Narva linn through Narva Linnavalitsuse Linnamajandusamet; original interested person XX — replaced by a legal successor

How it started · editorial summary

The apartment association Viru tn 20 sought restoration costs for a shared stairwell after a fire; Narva linn entered as legal successor to original participant XX.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Viru tn 20 korteriühistu applied for reimbursement of costs of remedying the consequences of the fire of 19 August 2019. It referred to soot and water damage in the shared stairwell and expenses of 4 767,29 euros. The demand was originally against owner XX; the court later allowed substitution by Narva linn as universal legal successor. In this case the city acted through Narva Linnavalitsuse Linnamajandusamet, rather than as a separate municipal company. After court-allowed negotiation time, the participants submitted an agreement on 31 January 2024. The city undertook to pay the association 3 986,69 euros: 3 178,19 euros for damage and 808,50 euros in costs. Payment is due within three days after entry into force of the ruling approving the settlement and ending the case. Association costs above the agreed 808,50 euros and the city’s own costs remained with the respective participants. The court found the parties entitled to dispose of the dispute and the terms admissible and enforceable. It approved the agreement and terminated proceedings without separately deciding the basis of liability for the fire. The association was also released from reimbursing the state for earlier legal aid, with those costs left to the budget. The association is to receive 25 euros back, half the fee paid. Participants also shortened the appeal period against the ruling to three days after service.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the settlement: Narva linn through Linnamajandusamet pays the association 3 986,69 euros, including 3 178,19 euros for damage and 808,50 euros in costs, within three days after entry into force. Terminate the case. Leave other costs to participants; do not recover state legal aid costs from the association, leaving them to the budget. Refund the association a 25 euro fee.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Terminate proceedings in civil case No 2-21-8475.
First instance
Case 2-22-17238Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 4 korteriühistu · 80339391

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsPayment accounting and set-offLate-payment interest and consequences of delayWater and sewerageCalculation of water chargesRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairs

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought management and utility debts with late-payment interest. XX disputed the calculation and crediting of payments. The court granted only part of the claim, excluding unproved water charges.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-17238/22Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Partial debt award: accounting for payments and proving water charges

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 4 korteriühistu · 80339391

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 4 korteriühistu; Person concerned — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought management and utility debts with late-payment interest. XX disputed the calculation and crediting of payments. The court granted only part of the claim, excluding unproved water charges.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 4 korteriühistu sought unpaid management and utility charges and late-payment interest. XX challenged the calculation, alleged that payments had not been credited, and refused some maintenance and repair-fund charges without explanations of tariffs and evidence of work. The association repeatedly reduced its claim and acknowledged that some earlier payments had not been accounted for. The court examined invoices, bank records, tariff resolutions and supplier calculations. It rejected unilateral exclusion of maintenance and repair-fund contributions: they concerned the upkeep of the shared building, rather than only services actually used in a particular month. A separate entrance did not itself remove liability for common expenses. Differences between individual invoices were not considered sufficient proof of forgery. However, the court found the build-up of debt and allocation of payments difficult to follow. Part of the claim was proved, but some water charges lacked the necessary price information, supplier invoices, readings and calculation. The court excluded that part and granted the application in part. It awarded proved principal, accrued late-payment interest and continuing statutory late-payment interest from 17 November 2022 until the awarded principal is paid. Procedural costs were divided equally, with the amount to be determined separately.

Outcome of this decision

The application was granted in part: proved principal and late-payment interest were awarded, including continuing late-payment interest from 17 November 2022 until the awarded principal is paid. Unproved water charges were excluded. Each participant must bear 50% of the other’s costs; their amount will be determined separately after the order becomes final.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Grant the application of Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 4 korteriühistu in part.
First instance
Case 2-22-139489Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 10b korteriühistu · 80145534

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesLate-payment interest and consequences of delayHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesWater and sewerageCalculation of water chargesRepairs and shared propertyFaçade, windows and balconiesOrganisation and funding of repairs

How it started · editorial summary

The court required evidence of tariffs and services despite the absence of a response.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-139489/31Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Checking the basis of management charges

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 10b korteriühistu · 80145534

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 10b korteriühistu; person concerned XX — debtor

How it started · editorial summary

The court required evidence of tariffs and services despite the absence of a response.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 10b korteriühistu claimed management-charge arrears and accrued late-payment interest from XX. After unsuccessful service of a payment proposal, the case was transferred to the county court. The court deemed documents served through the letterbox once procedural conditions were satisfied; XX did not respond. The court requested further evidence of the basis of the charges. The charter, meeting decisions on tariffs and a facade fund, supplier contracts and heating and water-circulation calculations proved the obligation and debt. The application was allowed. Principal, accrued late-payment interest, 470 euros in costs and statutory late-payment interest on costs from entry into force of the decision fixing them were awarded. Continuing late-payment interest on principal was not awarded in the operative part. Subsequent performance is not established.

Outcome of this decision

Application allowed; debt, accrued late-payment interest and 470 euros in costs with statutory late-payment interest on costs awarded.

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 3-20-1323Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu · 80121083

Repairs and shared property

How it started · editorial summary

XX sought an order requiring Narva to continue supervision and issue a binding notice to the association over partition walls. The appellate court refused: the city had investigated the concern and grounds for further measures were not substantiated.

· Court orderTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 3-20-1323/11Read act

Separate act page

The association’s participation in a wall-repair supervision dispute

Court order · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu · Narva linn · ·

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant in the main case — XX; Respondent — Narva linn; Third party and appellant against the order — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The association challenged its joinder as a third party to administrative proceedings against the city. The appellate court upheld joinder because the possible outcome affected the association’s repair-related rights and obligations.

The dispute and the court’s decision

XX sought an order requiring Narva to continue building supervision and issue a wall-repair notice to Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu. The administrative court admitted the claim and joined the association as a third party. The association appealed against joinder, arguing that the dispute concerned only the city’s conduct and would create unnecessary costs for it. Tartu Ringkonnakohus held that the outcome could require continued supervision of the association, impose an obligation or at least require reconsideration. The court could therefore determine the association’s rights, making third-party participation mandatory. The claim’s perceived prospects and potential costs did not remove that requirement. The association’s appeal was dismissed and joinder upheld. The court explained that the association could choose how actively to participate and seek reimbursement of costs under the statutory conditions. This act did not decide repairs, the existence of danger or the merits of XX’s underlying claim.

Outcome of this decision

The association remains a third party: its appeal was dismissed and point 5 of Tartu Halduskohus’s 30.11.2020 order upheld. This act did not impose a duty to repair the partition wall.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Dismiss the appeal of A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu and uphold point 5 of the operative part of Tartu Halduskohus’s order of 30 November 2020.
Appeal
· Judgment in an administrative caseTartu Halduskohus · First instance · № 3-20-1323/17Read act

Separate act page

A. Puškini tn 13: request to require Narva to continue state supervision of partitions refused

Judgment in an administrative case · Tartu Halduskohus · First instance

Narva linn · Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu · · 80121083

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant XX – person bringing the administrative complaint; respondent – Narva linn; third party – Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu; applicant’s representative XX; city representative XX; third party’s representative XX; supervisory official XX

How it started · editorial summary

Owner XX challenged the end of supervision over the partitions’ condition and sought a binding direction to the association; the city relied on inspections carried out.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Applicant XX sought an order requiring Narva linn to continue state supervision and issue a direction to the apartment association Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 to repair partitions. XX considered the structures dangerous and argued that visual inspections were insufficient to check the risk. The city was the respondent, and the association participated as a third party. The city reported two inspections: the second found no wall collapse or falling blocks and no change since the first. An expert survey was recommended to clarify the technical condition, which the owner or association could commission. The city considered coercive intervention by the supervisory authority unnecessary. The court first rejected the applicant’s request to amend the complaint because the letter ending supervision was not a suitable object for a claim to annul an administrative act. It also refused the city’s request to leave the complaint unexamined: there were no obvious grounds, and the dispute needed consideration on the merits. On the merits, the court found that the city had begun supervision, taken steps and assessed the findings. The materials did not establish sufficient public interest or a need for further coercive measures; the applicant could protect rights through relations with the association and civil proceedings. State supervision does not replace owners’ duties to maintain the building. The judgment of 20 January 2022 dismissed the demand to compel continued supervision. Each participant was left to bear its own costs. This is not an engineering finding that the structures are unconditionally safe and does not decide a separate private-law dispute over repair or association liability. The applicant’s requested 600 euros in costs was not awarded.

Outcome of this decision

Refuse applicant XX’s request to amend the complaint and Narva linn’s request to leave it unexamined. Dismiss the demand to require the city to continue supervision and issue a direction to the association. Each participant bears its own costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Dismiss XX’s application of 21.12.2021 to amend the complaint. […] 2. Dismiss Narva linn’s application to leave the complaint unexamined. […] 3. Dismiss XX’s complaint. […] 4. The participants shall bear their own litigation costs.
First instance
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 3-20-1323/23Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Safety of partition walls: must the city continue building supervision?

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu · Narva linn · ·

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and appellant — XX; Respondent — Narva linn; Third party — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

XX sought an order requiring Narva to continue supervision and issue a binding notice to the association over partition walls. The appellate court refused: the city had investigated the concern and grounds for further measures were not substantiated.

The dispute and the court’s decision

XX approached Narva over the alleged danger posed by partition walls between apartments and then sought an administrative court order requiring further supervision and a binding notice to Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu. City inspections found no signs of disintegration or danger. XX considered visual inspection insufficient and sought a fuller assessment. Tartu Ringkonnakohus upheld the administrative court’s refusal. It held that owners bear primary responsibility for maintaining a safe building; municipal supervision does not replace resolution of a private-law dispute about repairs and costs. The city had investigated the stated concern. XX identified no specific signs of structural damage that would undermine the inspections and call for further supervisory measures. The court did not require the city to organise repairs, determine their price or allocate costs between owners and the association. Who must pay for repairs or expert assessment, and in what proportions, was not decided in this case. The appeal was dismissed and the earlier judgment upheld. No costs were awarded to the city or association because the required documents and cost lists had not been submitted.

Outcome of this decision

The appeal was dismissed and Tartu Halduskohus’s judgment of 20.01.2022 upheld. On the facts established here, the city need not continue supervision or issue a notice to the association. XX bears their own costs; no costs were awarded to the city or association.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Dismiss the appeal and uphold Tartu Halduskohus’s judgment of 20 January 2022.
Appeal
Case 2-22-11550Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 13 korteriühistu · 80445319

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeBudget, management plan and ratesArticles of association and amendmentsApartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the boardAuthority and representationRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairsAgenda and minutes

How it started · editorial summary

Owner XX obtained a declaration that decisions on repairs, the chair and maintenance charges were void. The court relied on breaches involving the agenda and preparation of the meeting.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-11550/8Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

P. Kerese tn 13: decisions on payments and chair void because of the meeting agenda

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 13 korteriühistu · 80445319

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant XX – owner; interested person – Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 13 korteriühistu; applicant’s representative XX; association representative and elected chair XX

How it started · editorial summary

Owner XX obtained a declaration that decisions on repairs, the chair and maintenance charges were void. The court relied on breaches involving the agenda and preparation of the meeting.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court declared several decisions of the apartment association Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 13 repeat meeting of 9 June 2022 without legal effect from adoption. Significant matters had not been identified in advance on the agenda, and access arrangements for the management plan being amended had not been provided. Owner XX challenged a special contribution of 5 euros per square metre to complete repairs, election of the chair, the chair’s monthly remuneration and a maintenance charge of 0,51 euros per square metre. XX argued that these decisions could not be taken under a general current-matters item. XX also disputed the meeting’s authority to elect the chair and the ability to impose payments outside the management plan. The association admitted the stated circumstances but asked that each participant bear its own costs. The applicant considered that the association should pay them. The court relied on the admitted facts: owners could not understand in advance which decisions would be taken. It regarded the chair and payments as significant matters and the convening breach as sufficient for nullity. Access arrangements for the management plan had not been properly specified. The court did not decide the other arguments: it imposed no general ban on a meeting electing a chair and did not separately assess payments outside the plan. The ruling of 10 October 2022 declared item 3 and items 4.1–4.3 void. Each bears its own costs. The court took account of the possibility of an out-of-court resolution and another meeting before the application was filed.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the application. Declare item 3 on the 5 euros/m² payment and items 4.1–4.3 on chair XX, monthly remuneration and the 0,51 euros/m² maintenance charge from 01.06.2022 void. Leave costs with the participants; none are reimbursed.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. The participants shall bear their own litigation costs. There are no reimbursable litigation costs.
First instance
Case 2-20-11613Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, […] korteriühistu

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeBudget, management plan and ratesApartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the boardRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairs

How it started · editorial summary

The court examined resolutions of a repeat meeting and a later written vote. The appeal court retained the voidness of the management-plan and later election resolutions, removing only a reference to a point on which no decision had been made.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-20-11613/46Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Board replacement and a management plan: different consequences of notice defects

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, […] korteriühistu ·

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: First applicant — XX; Other applicants, elected board members — XX; Person concerned — Narva linn, […] korteriühistu; Person concerned, former board member — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The court examined resolutions of a repeat meeting and a later written vote. The appeal court retained the voidness of the management-plan and later election resolutions, removing only a reference to a point on which no decision had been made.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Two applications concerning an association whose name and code are redacted in the source were examined together. The first applicant, XX, challenged resolutions of a repeat meeting on 03.08.2020 convened by an initiative group after the board refused. Other applicants, XX, challenged written resolutions of 24.02.2021 on another board replacement organised by the former board. The court recognised the initiative group’s right to convene: enough members had submitted a reasoned request and the board had refused. The repeat meeting procedure was regarded as compliant. However, management-plan materials had not been made available in advance and the notice did not explain access to them. Points 3–6 concerning the chair’s remuneration, improvements, repairs and changes to the financial plan were therefore declared void. Challenges to points 1, 7, 8 and 9, including removal of the former board and election of its replacement, were dismissed. The written resolutions of 24.02.2021 were declared void because they were organised by the removed board, and no request to the valid new board had been proved. Each participant was left to bear their own costs. On 28 October 2022, Tartu Ringkonnakohus retained the substantive result and first-instance costs allocation. It removed only the reference to point 2 of the 3 August 2020 meeting from the dismissal, because no resolution had been adopted on that point. Appeal costs were placed on the appellants, including reimbursement of the other group’s costs.

Outcome of this decision

Points 3–6 of the 3 August 2020 resolutions and the 24 February 2021 resolutions were declared void; challenges to points 1, 7, 8 and 9 were dismissed. On 28 October 2022, Tartu Ringkonnakohus removed only the reference to point 2, on which no decision had been made. First-instance costs remain each participant’s own; appeal costs fall on the appellants.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Leave each participant to bear their own procedural costs.
First instance
Case 2-20-7413Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu · 80121083

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesObligations of multiple ownersRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairs

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought charges jointly and severally from two owners. Only the proved repair-fund contributions were awarded. The appeal court later increased that part to include December 2020; the remaining dismissal for lack of proof was retained.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-20-7413/45Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Co-owners’ debt: only repair-fund contributions were proved

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu · 80121083

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu; Person concerned I, owner — XX; Person concerned II, owner — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought charges jointly and severally from two owners. Only the proved repair-fund contributions were awarded. The appeal court later increased that part to include December 2020; the remaining dismissal for lack of proof was retained.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu sought debt jointly and severally from two owners, XX. They challenged the amount charged, the floor area used and receipt of invoices. One owner also relied on the condition of a partition wall and alleged failures by the association. The court repeatedly asked the association to explain its calculation and supply supplier records. The first-instance court rejected the contention that invoices had not been received and did not treat the condition of the premises as an independent basis for avoiding every charge in this dispute. However, recovery still required proof of costs and their allocation. The association’s own invoices and accounting table did not fully establish these matters. Supplier-liability records and the basis of many tariffs were not provided. The first-instance court found only the repair-fund contributions proved and awarded them jointly and severally. The remaining claims were rejected for lack of proof. On 4 February 2022, Tartu Ringkonnakohus increased the repair-fund award to include December 2020, so that part covers the whole of 2020. The remaining dismissal was retained. Each participant bears their own costs in both instances.

Outcome of this decision

The joint and several award was limited to proved repair-fund contributions. On 4 February 2022, Tartu Ringkonnakohus increased it to include December 2020 and retained dismissal of the other claims for lack of proof. Each participant bears their own costs in both instances.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Grant the application of Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu in part. […] Dismiss the remainder of the application for lack of proof.
First instance