Withdrawal of a board-election challenge: authority to represent the city

Narva challenged an association’s board elections. The first-instance court left the application unexamined after its withdrawal, but the appellate court found the person withdrawing it lacked authority and remitted the case to continue.

Narva linn challenged resolutions of Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu made on 11.08.2020 about the board’s membership and selection of its chair. A board member of Sihtasutus Narva Linnaelamu later filed a withdrawal in the city’s name. Viru Maakohus consequently left the case unexamined and imposed costs on the applicant. The city appealed, arguing that the person had no authority to represent it. Tartu Ringkonnakohus distinguished the separate legal entities: being the foundation’s statutory representative did not itself confer authority to represent the municipality. The file contained no city power of attorney, necessary confirmation of representative qualifications or subsequent city approval of the withdrawal. The appellate court reversed the order of 09.08.2021 and remitted the case to the same court to continue. It did not decide the substantive validity of the board elections. It also indicated that the authority of another city representative might require further examination. The first-instance court must determine costs and their amount according to the subsequent result.

The city’s appeal against the order was granted. The order leaving the application unexamined was reversed and the case remitted to Viru Maakohus to continue. The board elections’ substantive validity was not decided; costs depend on the further outcome.