Joala 5: appeal returned after the deadline

The e-toimik record of service on the representative determined the appeal period; the court rejected the asserted later date.

In the debt dispute between Korteriühistu Joala 5 (now — Narva linn, Joala tn 5 korteriühistu) and XX, the first-instance court granted the claim and awarded costs on 03.02.2016. XX appealed. Tartu Ringkonnakohus refused to admit the appeal and returned it because it arrived after the deadline. The court found that the judgment was served on XX’s representative through the public e-toimik system on 03.02.2016. The thirty-day period began on 04.02.2016 and ended on 04.03.2016, while the appeal arrived on 06.03.2016. The representative’s asserted receipt date of 05.02.2016 was rejected as inconsistent with e-toimik records. The established date of service on the representative was decisive. Under the rule applied by the court, the returned appeal is treated as not filed. This act did not review the debt claim on its merits on appeal and does not establish actual recovery. An interlocutory appeal to Riigikohus within 15 days after service was explained, generally through a sworn advocate. The result of any such further application is unknown.

Admission of the appeal against the judgment of 03.02.2016 was refused as late; the appeal was returned and is treated as not filed. The appellate court did not review the debt dispute on the merits. The subsequent outcome of the case is not established.