Skip to decisions
Žuk — ANTON и JELENA

Narva apartment associations Court decisions

The collection is growing. We explain decisions in accessible language. Browsing by subject helps readers study building management practice, explore similar situations and prevent conflicts.

Materials for studying practice. An editorial summary does not replace an individual legal assessment or promise a dispute outcome.

Subjects and subtopics

A subject describes the dispute; it does not establish a violation.

Additional parameters

Reset all
Case 2-21-138254

Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 12 korteriühistu · 80508340

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayInstalments and payment schedules

How it started · editorial summary

The association and debtor submitted an instalment agreement before a payment order was issued.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-21-138254/5Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kreenholmi tn 12: instalments approved, but court did not accept appeal waiver

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 12 korteriühistu · 80508340

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant – apartment association; Debtor – XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association and debtor submitted an instalment agreement before a payment order was issued.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Viru Maakohus approved the settlement between Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 12 korteriühistu and debtor XX and terminated proceedings. The agreement provides for payment of building maintenance and other arrears, a 22,50-euro court fee and 89,70 euros for legal assistance. The parties agreed monthly instalments. The ruling contains no confirmation of performance. The association may demand late-payment interest of 0,02% per day on unpaid expenses and other payments from the agreed date. Breach of the schedule makes the entire remaining obligation immediately enforceable. Each participant bears expenses not named in the agreement. The court left the fee refund for a separate ruling after finality. It rejected the parties’ request to exclude appeals, finding such an agreement impermissible in the procedure used. Approval of the settlement therefore did not mean waiver of the right to appeal the ruling.

Outcome of this decision

Approve monthly instalments for the debt, 22,50 euros in court fees and 89,70 euros for legal assistance, with late-payment interest of 0,02% per day on unpaid expenses and other payments from the agreed date. Breach makes the full remaining obligation immediately enforceable. Terminate proceedings. Refuse the request to exclude appeals. Decide the fee refund separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Terminate proceedings in civil case No. 2-21-138254.
Case 2-21-11708

Narva linn, Soldina tn 18c korteriühistu · 80061091

Apartment association meetings and decisions

How it started · editorial summary

The applicant waived the challenge to the general meeting decision; the association did not oppose termination.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-21-11708/20Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

A-A. Tiimanni tn 18c: meeting decision dispute terminated after applicant waived the claim

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, A-A. Tiimanni tn 18c korteriühistu · 80061091

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — XX; Interested person — apartment association

How it started · editorial summary

The applicant waived the challenge to the general meeting decision; the association did not oppose termination.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Viru Maakohus terminated proceedings on XX’s application challenging Narva linn, A-A. Tiimanni tn 18c korteriühistu’s general meeting decision of 20 July 2021. The applicant waived the demand and the association did not object. The court accepted the waiver without deciding the meeting decision’s validity. The applicant had sought a finding of nullity, meaning absence of legal effect, or alternatively to set the decision aside. The waiver removed the need for the hearing scheduled the next day, and the court cancelled it. The court also explained that termination prevents the same demand being brought against the same participant on the same grounds again. Court costs were left to the applicant. However, the association said it did not seek its own costs, so no specific amount payable to the other participant was awarded. Refund of part of the state fee was left to a separate ruling after entry into force.

Outcome of this decision

Terminate proceedings, cancel the hearing and leave costs to the applicant. No costs amounts are reimbursable to the other participant. Decide the fee refund separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
4. There are no procedural costs reimbursable to the participants.
Case 2-21-112650

Narva linn, Masina tn 3 korteriühistu · 80480764

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayBills and justification of chargesHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesWater and sewerageCalculation of water charges

How it started · editorial summary

The owner, a commercial company, appealed against recovery, citing non-receipt of invoices and case documents.

· RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-21-112650/21Read actAppeal

Separate act page

A. Bastrakovi tn 3: Peremaakler’s appeal against debt recovery dismissed

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, A. Bastrakovi tn 3 korteriühistu · OÜ Peremaakler · 80480764 · 11523072

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — apartment association; Debtor and appellant — OÜ Peremaakler

How it started · editorial summary

The owner, a commercial company, appealed against recovery, citing non-receipt of invoices and case documents.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Tartu Ringkonnakohus upheld the award against OÜ Peremaakler in favour of Narva linn, A. Bastrakovi tn 3 korteriühistu: 1003,78 euros in building maintenance costs and 44,69 euros in late-payment interest. The company’s appeal was dismissed and appeal costs allocated to it. The county court was to determine court costs later. The company claimed it had received neither association invoices nor court documents and could not inspect the application or object. The circuit court checked the judicial information system. It showed that materials were sent to the company and one statutory representative confirmed receipt. Documents were also sent to another representative at an address known to the court from other proceedings, with a service procedure warning. The court found the company had an opportunity to present its position. The court also examined the grounds for charges. The association supplied invoices, accounting data, articles, decisions approving management plans, and heating and gas equipment maintenance supplier invoices. The court considered these to prove the costs and allocation between owners, with charges consistent with the adopted procedure. The company gave no specific objections to the debt calculation in its appeal. The award was therefore upheld after checks of both service and debt evidence. The ruling does not confirm actual payment of the sums awarded.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss the appeal and uphold the ruling of 22 September 2021. Allocate appeal costs to OÜ Peremaakler, with the amount set later by the county court.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Dismiss the appeal against the ruling and uphold the Viru Maakohus ruling of 22 September 2021.
Case 2-21-15117

Narva linn, Kosmonaudi tn 3 korteriühistu · 80162834

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought debt from XX, who had acquired the property by inheritance. The court checked the basis of liability and calculation and awarded principal, late-payment interest and costs.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-21-15117/5Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Building charges after ownership passed by inheritance

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kosmonaudi tn 3 korteriühistu · 80162834

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, Kosmonaudi tn 3 korteriühistu; Person concerned, successor to the owner — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought debt from XX, who had acquired the property by inheritance. The court checked the basis of liability and calculation and awarded principal, late-payment interest and costs.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Kosmonaudi tn 3 korteriühistu sought unpaid management and utility charges from XX, to whom the property had passed by inheritance. According to the association’s application, the disputed debt arose after the previous owner’s death; that owner had owed the association no debt. It relied on unpaid invoices and resolutions supporting charges and late-payment interest. XX received the application, attachments and admission order but submitted no objections. The court determined the application in non-contentious proceedings and checked ownership and succession records. It found that succession and the obligation to contribute to the association’s expenses justified the claim against XX. It considered the invoices and payment calculation substantiated. The application was granted: principal and accrued late-payment interest were awarded, together with continuing statutory late-payment interest from 25 September 2021 until the awarded principal is paid. The court also fixed reimbursable procedural costs and awarded late-payment interest on them from finality of the relevant order until payment. The lack of objections is not described as an admission by XX; the result rests on the court’s findings. Actual payment was not established.

Outcome of this decision

The association was awarded principal, accrued late-payment interest, continuing late-payment interest on the awarded principal from 25 September 2021 until it is paid and procedural costs. Separate late-payment interest applies to awarded costs after the order becomes final. This order does not establish actual payment.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Grant the application.
Case 2-20-10704

Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 18 korteriühistu · 80015336

Documents and informationInspection and copies of documentsReporting and review of expenditureApartment association meetings and decisionsBudget, management plan and ratesVoting and representation

How it started · editorial summary

The association appealed against nullity of three written decision items due to lack of access to full financial documents.

· RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-20-10704/36Read actAppeal

Separate act page

A. Daumani tn 18: short report and plan did not replace access to full documents

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, A. Daumani tn 18 korteriühistu · 80015336

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicants — two owners XX; Interested person and appellant — apartment association

How it started · editorial summary

The association appealed against nullity of three written decision items due to lack of access to full financial documents.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Tartu Ringkonnakohus dismissed Narva linn, A. Daumani tn 18 korteriühistu’s appeal and upheld nullity of items 1, 5 and 13 of the decisions of 30 May 2020 concerning 2019 reporting, electricity rates and the 2020 management plan. Nullity means no legal effect from the outset. Rejection of the challenge to item 9 on replacing water risers was not appealed and, the court stated, had already become final. The decisions were adopted by written vote without a meeting. Two owners XX alleged lack of access to necessary documents. The association replied that a board report and work plan were placed in mailboxes, decisions were adopted by majority, and the audit report could be obtained. The circuit court accepted that the applicants could indeed inspect the audit report. But that did not cure the main defect: access to a legally compliant annual report and management plan was not ensured, nor were the place and procedure for inspection communicated. The brief documents distributed did not contain all the required information. In particular, the plan lacked projected utility volumes and costs; the board report did not replace a complete annual report. This prevented informed voting, including on electricity rates. The court explained that full documents need not be handed to everyone on paper: participants must be told how to inspect them. This also applies to written voting. The association’s argument that the applicants lacked financial knowledge did not limit their document rights. The first-instance costs allocation was retained: 80% to the association and 20% jointly and severally to applicants. Appeal costs were allocated to the association, with the amount set later.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss the association’s appeal and uphold the first-instance ruling. Allocate appeal costs to the association.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Dismiss Narva linna, A. Daumani tn 18 korteriühistu’s appeal against the ruling and uphold the Viru Maakohus ruling of 30 April 2021.
Case 2-21-13043

Narva linn, Soldina tn 18c korteriühistu · 80061091

Apartment association meetings and decisions

How it started · editorial summary

Six applicants and the association agreed acknowledgement of nullity of a decision adopted by written vote.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-21-13043/6Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

A-A. Tiimanni 18c: written decision declared void under the parties’ agreement

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, A-A. Tiimanni 18c korteriühistu · 80061091

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicants — six individuals XX; Interested person — apartment association

How it started · editorial summary

Six applicants and the association agreed acknowledgement of nullity of a decision adopted by written vote.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Viru Maakohus approved the settlement between six applicants XX and Narva linn, A-A. Tiimanni 18c korteriühistu, declared the decision of 21 June 2021 void and terminated proceedings. The decision had been adopted without convening a general meeting. Nullity means that it creates no legal effects from the outset. The association accepted the applicants’ nullity request and participants jointly sought confirmation of that outcome. They submitted a signed agreement and did not consider a hearing necessary for approval. The court found the agreement admissible. The ruling does not describe the specific breaches originally alleged; the case ended because agreement was reached. Each participant bears their own costs. The court ordered a 25 euro refund to the applicants, half the fee paid. Under a term agreed by the parties and accepted by the court, the period for appeal against the ruling was shortened to one day after service. Actual refund and subsequent proceedings are not confirmed in this text.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the settlement, declare the association’s decision of 21 June 2021 void and terminate proceedings. Leave costs to participants; refund the applicants a 25 euro fee.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
4. Terminate the proceedings in civil case No 2-21-13043.
Case 2-21-4363

Narva linn, Soldina tn 2 korteriühistu · 80180921

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayInstalments and payment schedules

How it started · editorial summary

The association and debtor submitted an agreement acknowledging debt and providing a payment schedule.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-21-4363/4Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

A-A. Tiimanni tn 2: two-year instalments for debt and costs approved

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, A-A. Tiimanni tn 2 korteriühistu · 80180921

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — apartment association; Debtor — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association and debtor submitted an agreement acknowledging debt and providing a payment schedule.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Viru Maakohus approved a settlement between Narva linn, A-A. Tiimanni tn 2 korteriühistu and debtor XX and terminated proceedings. The debtor acknowledged debt for building maintenance and other payments, plus a 25 euro fee, 300 euros in legal assistance and 3 euros for collecting evidence. The parties agreed monthly payments over two years. The association may seek late-payment interest of 0,02% per day on unpaid debt from the agreed date. This term is separate from the consequence of breach of schedule: if the agreement is breached, the association may demand immediate payment of all remaining debt. The court found the agreement admissible. Each participant bears other court costs. The association was awarded a 25 euro fee refund from the budget. The parties waived appeals against the ruling. The act explains recourse to a bailiff on non-performance. It does not confirm actual payments or refund of the fee.

Outcome of this decision

Approve two-year monthly instalments for debt and costs: a 25 euro fee, 300 euros in legal assistance and 3 euros for evidence collection. Provide late-payment interest of 0,02% per day on unpaid debt from the agreed date and a right to demand immediate payment of the balance on breach of schedule. Terminate proceedings; leave other costs to participants. Refund the association a 25 euro fee.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
4. The parties shall bear their own procedural costs not specified in the settlement.
Case 2-21-4758

Narva linn, Soldina tn 2 korteriühistu · 80180921

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayInstalments and payment schedules

How it started · editorial summary

The association and debtor XX agreed on acknowledgment of debt, inclusion of costs and monthly instalments. The court approved the terms and terminated the case.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-21-4758/4Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

A-A. Tiimanni tn 2: court approved instalments for 914,22 euros in debt and costs

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, A-A. Tiimanni tn 2 korteriühistu · 80180921

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant – Narva linn, A-A. Tiimanni tn 2 korteriühistu; interested person XX – debtor and party to the agreement; association representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association and debtor XX agreed on acknowledgment of debt, inclusion of costs and monthly instalments. The court approved the terms and terminated the case.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court approved the instalment agreement between the apartment association Narva linn, A-A. Tiimanni tn 2 and debtor XX and terminated the case. The association initially sought principal and continuing late-payment interest; before determination, the participants agreed a smaller debt and payment schedule. The ruling does not set out separate debtor objections to the initial charges. Under the agreement, XX acknowledged unpaid management expenses and other payments. The agreed obligation also includes 25 euros, half the court fee, 300 euros for legal assistance and 3 euros to obtain evidence. The debtor acknowledged that payment was due, and the association gave additional time for voluntary performance. The schedule provides for monthly payments. The agreement entitles the association to demand late-payment interest of 0,02% per day on unpaid management expenses and other payments from the agreed date. Breach makes the entire agreed obligation immediately payable. The court examined the documents, checked the agreement’s permissibility and enforceability, approved it on 9 July 2021 and terminated proceedings. Each participant bears expenses not included in the agreement. The court ordered the association refunded 25 euros, half the court fee, from the state budget. The participants waived appeal against the ruling; it does not confirm subsequent payment under the schedule.

Outcome of this decision

Approve monthly instalments for the debt and costs: 25 euros, half the court fee, 300 euros for legal assistance and 3 euros to obtain evidence. Provide for late-payment interest of 0,02% per day on unpaid management expenses and other payments from the agreed date and immediate full payment on breach. Terminate proceedings, leave other costs with the participants and refund the association 25 euros in court fees.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
II. Terminate proceedings in civil case 2-21-4758 following approval of the settlement.
Case 2-20-5373

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12 korteriühistu · 80175498

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeVoting and representationDocuments and informationInspection and copies of documentsReporting and review of expenditure

How it started · editorial summary

The association appealed the declaration that meeting decisions were void. The circuit court gave decisive weight to applicant XX’s representative having read the materials beforehand and attended the meeting.

· RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-20-5373/28Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Kangelaste prospekt 12: circuit court reversed declaration that meeting decisions were void

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12 korteriühistu · 80175498

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant XX – challenged meeting decisions; interested person and appellant against the ruling – Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12 korteriühistu; applicant’s and association’s representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association appealed the declaration that meeting decisions were void. The circuit court gave decisive weight to applicant XX’s representative having read the materials beforehand and attended the meeting.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The circuit court reversed the declaration that meeting decisions were void and dismissed XX’s application; each party was left to bear its own costs. Applicant XX sought a declaration that decisions of the apartment association Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12 meeting of 12 March 2020 were void, meaning without legal effect from adoption. XX relied on failure to send the invitation and materials to an email address known to the association, absence of detailed access arrangements and overly short time for viewing documents. The association objected that the representative initially supplied no power of attorney but later received the documents and participated in the meeting. Viru Maakohus granted the application and imposed costs on the association. The association appealed. The circuit court accepted that it should have sent the invitation and papers to the known address on its own initiative. Nullity, however, required a substantial defect in meeting preparation that prevented the participant from learning of the meeting and preparing to vote. Here the applicant knew the meeting’s time and place. The representative received the necessary papers beforehand through another owner represented, read them, participated and stated objections. The court therefore did not regard failure to send the applicant a separate letter as substantially limiting those opportunities. Refusal to show documents to a person without authority also did not establish the alleged ground of nullity. Failure to explain the need for a power of attorney and allowing one hour for inspection did not change that finding. On 2 July 2021, the circuit court allowed the association’s appeal, reversed the nullity declaration and dismissed the application. Each participant bears its own costs at both levels: the association could have avoided the dispute by sending materials properly. The court thus found a breach of the duty to send documents but not the substantial impact needed for the outcome sought.

Outcome of this decision

Set aside the Viru Maakohus ruling of 11.05.2021 insofar as it granted the application, declared the meeting decisions of 12.03.2020 void and addressed association costs. Issue a new ruling dismissing the application. Allow the appeal; each participant bears its own first-instance and circuit court costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Allow the appeal against the ruling.
Case 2-21-8071

Narva linn, Soldina tn 2 korteriühistu · 80180921

Rights in real propertyProtection of estate assets

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought estate preservation and permission to dispose of property without documents on death and heirs. The circuit court set aside refusal to accept the application and ordered acceptance to be reconsidered.

· RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-21-8071/4Read actAppeal

Separate act page

A-A. Tiimanni tn 2: refusal to accept estate preservation application set aside

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, A-A. Tiimanni tn 2 korteriühistu · 80180921

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant and appellant against the ruling – Narva linn, A-A. Tiimanni tn 2 korteriühistu; owner XX – person whose estate the application concerns; association representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought estate preservation and permission to dispose of property without documents on death and heirs. The circuit court set aside refusal to accept the application and ordered acceptance to be reconsidered.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The circuit court set aside refusal to accept the association’s application to preserve estate property and returned the issue to the county court. The apartment association Narva linn, A-A. Tiimanni tn 2 sought preservation measures for owner XX’s estate, appointment of an administrator and inventory taker, and permission to dispose of the apartment ownership. It cited management and utility arrears and reported the owner’s death, but lacked documents on when death occurred and who the heirs were. It therefore asked the court to help obtain the information through international legal assistance. Viru Maakohus refused acceptance. It considered that death first had to be confirmed in separate proceedings and such confirmation could not be obtained in an estate preservation case. The association appealed, explaining that it knew of the death but could not itself request the necessary information from the competent foreign authority. The circuit court found refusal premature. An Estonian court may take measures to preserve an estate located in Estonia regardless of the country of the main succession proceedings. Evidence of death can also be obtained when examining an application for those measures. The first-instance court must check whether the evidence-gathering request meets requirements and, if needed, send an inquiry to the competent authority; a person who previously acted for the owner may also be heard if necessary. On 30 June 2021, the refusal was set aside and the application returned to the county court to decide acceptance. The association’s appeal was allowed and a 50-euro fee refund ordered. The circuit court did not itself appoint an administrator, authorise sale of the property or award the debt claimed.

Outcome of this decision

Set aside the Viru Maakohus ruling of 27.05.2021 and refer the association’s application to the county court to decide acceptance. Allow the appeal against the ruling. Refund the association 50 euros in court fees.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Allow the appeal against the ruling.
Case 2-20-7413

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu · 80121083

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesObligations of multiple ownersRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairs

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought charges jointly and severally from two owners. Only the proved repair-fund contributions were awarded. The appeal court later increased that part to include December 2020; the remaining dismissal for lack of proof was retained.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-20-7413/45Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Co-owners’ debt: only repair-fund contributions were proved

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu · 80121083

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu; Person concerned I, owner — XX; Person concerned II, owner — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought charges jointly and severally from two owners. Only the proved repair-fund contributions were awarded. The appeal court later increased that part to include December 2020; the remaining dismissal for lack of proof was retained.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu sought debt jointly and severally from two owners, XX. They challenged the amount charged, the floor area used and receipt of invoices. One owner also relied on the condition of a partition wall and alleged failures by the association. The court repeatedly asked the association to explain its calculation and supply supplier records. The first-instance court rejected the contention that invoices had not been received and did not treat the condition of the premises as an independent basis for avoiding every charge in this dispute. However, recovery still required proof of costs and their allocation. The association’s own invoices and accounting table did not fully establish these matters. Supplier-liability records and the basis of many tariffs were not provided. The first-instance court found only the repair-fund contributions proved and awarded them jointly and severally. The remaining claims were rejected for lack of proof. On 4 February 2022, Tartu Ringkonnakohus increased the repair-fund award to include December 2020, so that part covers the whole of 2020. The remaining dismissal was retained. Each participant bears their own costs in both instances.

Outcome of this decision

The joint and several award was limited to proved repair-fund contributions. On 4 February 2022, Tartu Ringkonnakohus increased it to include December 2020 and retained dismissal of the other claims for lack of proof. Each participant bears their own costs in both instances.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Grant the application of Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu in part. […] Dismiss the remainder of the application for lack of proof.
Case 2-21-107646

Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 13 korteriühistu · 80189477

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayInstalments and payment schedulesPayment accounting and set-off

How it started · editorial summary

After payment order recovery began, the association and debtor XX agreed the balance and six monthly payments. The association confirmed an earlier partial payment.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-21-107646/5Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Võidu prospekt 13: instalments approved for 619,62-euro balance after partial payment

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 13 korteriühistu · 80189477

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant – Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 13 korteriühistu; interested person XX – debtor and party to the agreement; association’s legal and contractual representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

After payment order recovery began, the association and debtor XX agreed the balance and six monthly payments. The association confirmed an earlier partial payment.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court approved the agreement between the apartment association Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 13 and debtor XX for scheduled repayment of the remaining debt and terminated the case. The association initially sought recovery through expedited payment order proceedings. Pärnu Maakohus then ended that procedure and referred the case to Viru Maakohus to approve the agreement. The debtor acknowledged principal, accrued late-payment interest and 65 euros in costs. The association confirmed an earlier partial payment and agreed the balance with the debtor. The ruling does not establish subsequent compliance with the schedule. The balance is payable in six monthly instalments. Current association bills must also continue to be paid. Delay entails late-payment interest of 0,022% per day on the unpaid amount. The court examined the agreement, found it permissible and enforceable, approved its terms on 21 May 2021 and terminated proceedings. The 65 euros in costs included in the agreement form part of the admitted obligation; each participant bears its other costs with no separate mutual reimbursement. The ruling does not set out independent objections to the original charges.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement taking account of the partial payment confirmed by the association. The outstanding debt, late-payment interest and agreed 65 euros in costs are payable in six monthly instalments. Retain current bills and late-payment interest of 0,022% per day on unpaid amounts upon delay. Terminate proceedings; leave other costs with the participants.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Terminate proceedings in civil case No. 2-21-107646.