Narva Sõbralik: the initial dismissal over meeting documents was later partly reversed

The first-instance court dismissed the challenge, but the appended appellate ruling changed the outcome for three financial decisions and for costs.

XX challenged Korteriühistu Narva Sõbralik’s meeting decisions of 6 May 2010 on reporting and the management plan. XX alleged that the board had not supplied the necessary documents two weeks beforehand. The association maintained that the materials had been delivered in time. The first-instance court refused both to declare the decisions void from the outset and to set them aside. It distinguished convening requirements from the duty to supply financial documents in advance. It found no defect in notice of the meeting itself. However, the association had not proved delivery two weeks beforehand or delivery of the balance sheet. Receiving some materials only three days before the meeting did not properly fulfil that duty. The court found no separate duty under the applicable provision or articles to supply the audit committee report. Despite these shortcomings, the first-instance court considered that XX could attend, ask questions and vote, and dismissed the claims. That initial result was subsequently changed in part on appeal. The saved source includes Tartu Ringkonnakohus’s operative ruling of 11 June 2012. It set aside three decisions: approval of the 2009 annual report, the 2010 budget, and the 2010 repairs and repair-fund tariff. The remainder of the judgment was upheld. This set aside specified decisions; it did not declare every meeting decision void from the outset. Costs in both court instances were allocated 25% to XX and 75% to the association. The association was additionally ordered to pay 50 euros in court fees to the state. The original allocation of all costs to XX did not survive. The source does not include the full appellate reasoning or establish actual payment.

The original full dismissal was partly reversed on 11 June 2012: three meeting decisions were set aside. Costs in both instances: 25% XX and 75% the association; an additional 50-euro fee is payable by the association to the state. The remainder was upheld.