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

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.

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.

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.