KÜ Kangelaste 3: refusal to reopen the general meeting case was upheld

The association sought to reopen a case after a default judgment declaring general meeting decisions void. The issues included the failure to respond, legal interest and the applicable articles.

OÜ Rosehill and XX sought a declaration that decisions of KÜ Kangelaste 3’s general meeting of 16 November 2011 were void. The county court had granted the claim by default because the association did not respond in time. The association sought to reopen the case and appealed against the refusal of 14 August 2013. It argued that the claim lacked legal justification, the claimants had not explained their legal interest and the wrong articles of association had been used. It also relied on circumstances concerning the organisation of legal assistance. The circuit court did not accept those circumstances as a valid reason for failing to respond. It stressed that even a default judgment requires the court to examine whether the claim is legally justified, using the factual allegations treated as admitted under the applicable default procedure. Members’ legal interest in establishing the nullity of association decisions could be presumed, but the claim’s subject and grounds still required justification. As the allegation of defective convening was treated as admitted, the court considered the claim justified. Convening had to be assessed against the articles in force at that time. The refusal to reopen remained unchanged and the association’s appeal was dismissed. Appeal costs were allocated to the association without fixing their amount.

The county court order of 14 August 2013 remained unchanged and the association’s appeal was dismissed. The proceedings were not reopened. Appeal costs were allocated to the association; their amount was not determined by this order.