The association’s participation in a wall-repair supervision dispute

The association challenged its joinder as a third party to administrative proceedings against the city. The appellate court upheld joinder because the possible outcome affected the association’s repair-related rights and obligations.

XX sought an order requiring Narva to continue building supervision and issue a wall-repair notice to Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu. The administrative court admitted the claim and joined the association as a third party. The association appealed against joinder, arguing that the dispute concerned only the city’s conduct and would create unnecessary costs for it. Tartu Ringkonnakohus held that the outcome could require continued supervision of the association, impose an obligation or at least require reconsideration. The court could therefore determine the association’s rights, making third-party participation mandatory. The claim’s perceived prospects and potential costs did not remove that requirement. The association’s appeal was dismissed and joinder upheld. The court explained that the association could choose how actively to participate and seek reimbursement of costs under the statutory conditions. This act did not decide repairs, the existence of danger or the merits of XX’s underlying claim.

The association remains a third party: its appeal was dismissed and point 5 of Tartu Halduskohus’s 30.11.2020 order upheld. This act did not impose a duty to repair the partition wall.