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

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

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.

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.