Skip to decisions
Žuk — ANTON и JELENA

Legal archive: reviews of court practice concerning Narva apartment associations

This section contains analytical reviews and editorial summaries of publicly available court decisions concerning relations between apartment owners and apartment associations in Narva. The information has been prepared by the Žuk Kinnisvara team for informational purposes.

We explain complex legal acts in plain language. Our archive is continually updated.

We plan to add reviews of decisions of the Supreme Court of Estonia (Riigikohus) on important issues concerning relations between apartment owners and apartment associations.

Before making important legal decisions, always check the official status and full case text in the state register (Riigi Teataja / e-Toimik).

Subjects and subtopics

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

Additional parameters

Reset all
2-20-16707

Narva linn, Madise tn 1, Madise tn 3, Malmi tn 3, Malmi tn 5 korteriühistu · 80152178

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

Editorial summary

After debt payment, the association waived the demand. The dispute continued over costs: XX relied on payment before acceptance of the application, the court on performance after filing.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-20-16707/7Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

I. Grafovi and Malmi: case ended after payment; debtor ordered to pay 178 euros in costs

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, I. Grafovi tn 1, I. Grafovi tn 3, Malmi tn 3, Malmi tn 5 korteriühistu · 80152178

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant – Narva linn, I. Grafovi tn 1, I. Grafovi tn 3, Malmi tn 3, Malmi tn 5 korteriühistu; interested person XX – debtor; association representative XX

Editorial summary

After debt payment, the association waived the demand. The dispute continued over costs: XX relied on payment before acceptance of the application, the court on performance after filing.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court ended the case after debt payment and awarded the association 178 euros in litigation costs against XX. The apartment association Narva linn, I. Grafovi tn 1, I. Grafovi tn 3, Malmi tn 3, Malmi tn 5 had sought arrears from owner XX. In response, XX reported payment and supplied payment documents. The association waived the demand but requested reimbursement of 298 euros in costs and refund of half the court fee. XX objected to bearing costs. XX argued that the debt had been paid before proceedings began, the association knew of payment and could have withdrawn its application in time. The court compared filing and full performance: the application arrived on 12 November 2020, and the demand was fully met on 25 November. It therefore applied the costs rule for payment after filing. Later acceptance of the application did not change that conclusion. The court acknowledged that the association could have reported payment sooner, but that did not remove necessary expenses already incurred. It nevertheless reduced legal expenses from 270 to 150 euros: the dispute was not complex, the representative attended no hearings and had no lengthy replies to examine. On 5 May 2021, proceedings ended following the association’s waiver. XX was ordered to pay 178 euros in costs, comprising an unrefunded 25-euro fee, 3 euros to obtain evidence and 150 euros for legal assistance. A further 25 euros in court fees was ordered refunded to the association from the state budget. The principal was not awarded again; the costs award does not confirm subsequent payment.

Outcome of this decision

Terminate proceedings following the association’s waiver. Impose costs on XX and award the association 178 euros. Refund the association 25 euros, half the court fee.
2-21-108784

Narva linn, Rahu tn 14 korteriühistu · 80015323

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

Editorial summary

The apartment association Rahu tn 14 and debtor XX agreed acknowledgement of debt with costs and monthly instalments. The court approved the agreement and terminated the case.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-21-108784/3Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Rahu tn 14: court approved instalments for 2 209,11 euros

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Rahu tn 14 korteriühistu · 80015323

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, Rahu tn 14 korteriühistu; interested person XX — debtor and party to the agreement; association’s statutory representative XX

Editorial summary

The apartment association Rahu tn 14 and debtor XX agreed acknowledgement of debt with costs and monthly instalments. The court approved the agreement and terminated the case.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court approved Narva linn, Rahu tn 14 korteriühistu’s agreement with XX on an acknowledged obligation and monthly instalments, then terminated the case. After submission of the agreement, the case was transferred from Pärnu Maakohus to Viru Maakohus for approval. The ruling gives no separate objections to charges. The obligation includes management expenses, other payments, late-payment interest and court costs. The participants confirmed that payment had fallen due and allowed additional time for voluntary payment. The schedule provides equal monthly payments by month-end and a separate final payment. Unpaid management expenses and other payments carry late-payment interest of 0,02% per day. Breach makes the entire agreed obligation immediately payable. Subsequent performance is not established by the act. The court found the agreement admissible. Each party bears other costs; the association was awarded a 33,25* euro fee refund. The participants waived appeal against the ruling.

Outcome of this decision

Approve XX’s agreement on the acknowledged obligation and monthly instalments with a separate final payment. Unpaid management expenses and other payments carry late-payment interest of 0,02% per day; breach makes the entire agreed obligation immediately due. Terminate the case; each party bears other costs; refund the association 33,25* euros in fees.
2-20-2889

Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 18 korteriühistu · 80015336

Documents and informationInspection and copies of documentsReporting and review of expenditureContracts, loans and bank documents

Editorial summary

A member sought documents underlying tax payments; the association proposed waiting for annual reporting. The court required access and accepted applicant XX’s withdrawal of the separate full-information request.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-20-2889/17Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

A. Daumani tn 18: association required to show documents underlying tax payments

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, A. Daumani tn 18 korteriühistu · 80015336

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant XX — owner seeking document access; interested person — Narva linn, A. Daumani tn 18 korteriühistu; applicant’s representative XX

Editorial summary

A member sought documents underlying tax payments; the association proposed waiting for annual reporting. The court required access and accepted applicant XX’s withdrawal of the separate full-information request.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court required the apartment association Narva linn, A. Daumani tn 18 to provide owner XX documents underlying tax payments and terminated the separate full-information claim after withdrawal. Owner XX sought contracts or primary accounting documents on which state taxes had been paid in the third and fourth quarters of 2019. The request followed information showing increased numbers of people working in the association. The applicant wanted to understand payment grounds and working conditions. If no documents existed, full information about those taxes was initially sought. The association replied that Teatmik data were informational and payments included one-off board bonuses for which no separate contracts were made. It considered inspection of reporting before the ordinary meeting sufficient and denied any need to litigate. No agreement was reached. At the hearing the applicant withdrew the second, information request while maintaining the document request. The court found the documents related to association activities and costs paid by owners. In its view, information on employees’ duties, workload, hours and remuneration did not itself justify wholly denying a member access. It also explained that genuine inspection may take place at association premises with reasonable time and a means to record content; a general access right does not mean copies must be emailed. On 16 April 2021, the association was ordered to provide the specified contracts or primary documents for inspection within 15 days after entry into force. Proceedings on the second request ended through withdrawal. Half the applicant’s costs were allocated to the association: a 25 euro fee and 85 euros in legal assistance, totalling 110 euros, were awarded. The act confirms neither actual provision of documents nor payment of costs.

Outcome of this decision

Require the association to provide XX contracts or primary accounting documents underlying tax payments in quarters III and IV of 2019 for inspection within 15 days after entry into force. Terminate the full-information request through withdrawal. Allocate 50% of the applicant’s costs to the association and award a 25 euro fee and 85 euros in legal assistance.
2-21-104304

Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 10 korteriühistu · 80183397

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

Editorial summary

The parties agreed long-term monthly instalments. The court approved the terms and terminated the case; the act does not confirm subsequent performance.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-21-104304/3Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Võidu prospekt 10: instalments for 4 403,90 euros approved until July 2028

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 10 korteriühistu · 80183397

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 10 korteriühistu; interested person XX — debtor and party to the agreement; association’s statutory representative XX

Editorial summary

The parties agreed long-term monthly instalments. The court approved the terms and terminated the case; the act does not confirm subsequent performance.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court approved Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 10 korteriühistu’s agreement with XX for long-term monthly instalments and terminated the case. The ruling confirms agreed terms without separately examining objections to how charges arose. The acknowledged obligation includes management expenses, late-payment interest and court costs. Included costs are not awarded again on top of the agreed sum. A first payment and subsequent equal payments no later than the last day of each month are provided. If deadlines are breached, the association may seek late-payment interest of 0,02% per day. Breach of the duty to pay debt instalments also makes the entire debt immediately payable. This ruling does not confirm subsequent performance or the current balance. The court found the agreement admissible. Each party bears other costs; the association was awarded a 68,30* euro fee refund. The parties waived appeal against the ruling.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement with XX for long-term monthly instalments. Delay carries late-payment interest of 0,02% per day and breach of the schedule makes full payment immediately due. Terminate the case; each party bears other costs; refund the association 68,30* euros in fees.
2-20-100537

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu · 80183301

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayParking and groundsConstruction of parking facilitiesApartment association meetings and decisionsBudget, management plan and rates

Editorial summary

The participants confirmed payment of the principal claim, after which the association withdrew its application. The court approved a separate agreement for an additional 100 euros in costs.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-20-100537/18Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

P. Kerese tn 6: court approved a 100 euro costs agreement after debt payment

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu · 80183301

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu; interested person XX — debtor and party to the costs agreement; association’s representative XX

Editorial summary

The participants confirmed payment of the principal claim, after which the association withdrew its application. The court approved a separate agreement for an additional 100 euros in costs.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court terminated the case after confirmed payment of the principal claim and approved an agreement for an additional 100 euros in costs to the association. The apartment association Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 sought debt and late-payment interest from participant XX. The dispute concerned earmarked contributions for a car park. After an objection in payment order proceedings, the case was transferred to Viru Maakohus. XX attempted a counter-application challenging transactions based on meeting decisions; admission was refused and the circuit court upheld that refusal. The association and XX then reported satisfaction of the claim on 17 March 2021. Their consistent reports stated that principal, late-payment interest and previously claimed costs had been paid. The association withdrew its monetary demand, and participants submitted a separate agreement on remaining court costs. Under that agreement, XX must pay the association an additional 100 euros by 31 May 2021. XX bears their own costs. The participants confirmed understanding the consequences of termination and waived appeal against the ruling. On 22 March 2021 the court accepted withdrawal of the application on the paid claim, approved the costs agreement and terminated proceedings. It found no conflict with the law or good morals. It did not separately allocate or determine recoverable costs because the amount and payment arrangements were already agreed. Principal and previously paid costs are not awarded again. The act does not confirm performance of the new 100 euro obligation.

Outcome of this decision

Accept the association’s withdrawal of the paid debt application. Approve the agreement: XX pays the association 100 euros in costs by 31.05.2021 and bears their own costs. Terminate proceedings; do not determine costs separately.
2-16-122254

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 45 korteriühistu · 80197258

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

Editorial summary

The association’s debt and late-payment interest claim ended in a settlement with a payment schedule.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-122254/86Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Puškini 45: court approved a debt repayment schedule

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

korteriühistu Puškini 45 · 80197258

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — korteriühistu Puškini 45; Defendant — XX

Editorial summary

The association’s debt and late-payment interest claim ended in a settlement with a payment schedule.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Puškini 45 brought a debt and late-payment interest claim against XX. The court approved the parties’ agreement and terminated proceedings without separately resolving the original substantive objections. XX acknowledged the agreed principal. The first payment is due within three days after entry into force, followed by equal monthly payments by month-end. Delay of more than one day in any payment cancels the schedule, making all remaining principal due. Breach carries late-payment interest of 0,065% per day on unpaid principal. A separate clause provides statutory late-payment interest for delayed payment of the balance after cancellation of the schedule. Each party bears its own court costs. The association was awarded a 225 euro refund, half the fee. On non-performance, an application to a bailiff is possible; actual payment is not confirmed.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement: first payment within three days after entry into force, followed by monthly payments. Delay of more than one day cancels the schedule and makes the balance due. Breach carries late-payment interest of 0,065% per day and a separate statutory late-payment interest clause for delay in paying the balance after cancellation. Terminate the case; each party bears its own costs; refund the association 225 euros in fees.
2-16-16599

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu · 80189721

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesApartment association meetings and decisionsBudget, management plan and ratesContracts and servicesTenancy and leaseRepairs and shared propertyBasement, stairwell and shared roomsLimitation of claims

Latest prepared act · · № 2-16-16599/43

Editorial summary

The dispute concerned the basis for extra charges for the shared staircase and the floor area used to charge heating for non-residential premises.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 3 · Unprepared stages: 1
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-16-16599/43Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Brainella: association decisions did not support additional stair-use and heating charges

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Osaühing Brainella · Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu · 10294480 · 80189721

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and appellant – Osaühing Brainella; Defendant – Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu

Editorial summary

The dispute concerned the basis for extra charges for the shared staircase and the floor area used to charge heating for non-residential premises.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The circuit court granted Osaühing Brainella’s claim in full, declaring no obligation to pay the disputed rent and no additional heating debt. Osaühing Brainella sought a declaration that it did not have to pay rent or the disputed extra heating charge to the apartment association at A. Puškini tn 12. The company owned non-residential premises. The association charged for use of a separated stair section and calculated heating over a larger area. The company objected that no lease existed and heating should be charged for its premises’ area of 88,4 m². The association argued that the extra charges were based on general meeting decisions and use of the separated staircase expressed consent to the charge. On rehearing, Viru Maakohus confirmed there was no contract but found a payment duty based on meeting decisions. The company appealed dismissal of the rest of its demands. Tartu Ringkonnakohus agreed that an owners’ majority can in principle decide ordinary management of shared property. However, these particular decisions had been adopted with the 2004, 2005 and 2010 management plans and applied within those respective years. The association did not establish a basis for the disputed charges in later years. The circuit court granted the claim in full. It declared no lease relationship or rent obligation and that heating from 28 February 2011 to 31 January 2016 was payable on an area of 88,4 m². The company did not owe 285,63 euros in heating debt as at 31 January 2016. All litigation costs at both levels were imposed on the association, to be quantified by the county court after finality. No demand to demolish the partition was decided in this case.

Outcome of this decision

Grant Brainella’s claim in full: no lease relationship or rent payment duty exists; heating for the stated period is calculated on 88,4 m²; no debt of 285,63 euros is owed. The association bears costs at both levels, to be quantified separately.
· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-16599/37Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Charges for part of a stairwell and heating: the basis of charges and later reversal

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Osaühing Brainella · Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu · 10294480 · 80189721

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — Osaühing Brainella; Defendant — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu

Editorial summary

Osaühing Brainella challenged charges for using and heating part of a stairwell. The first-instance court declared only that no lease existed; the appellate court later granted all claims, reversing the refusals and the costs allocation.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Osaühing Brainella sought declarations against Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu that no lease existed and no payment was owed for part of a stairwell. It also sought heating calculations based only on 88.4 m² and a declaration that 285.63 euros was not owed for 28.02.2011–31.01.2016. Invoices included a monthly charge of 15.98 euros. The case was being reheard after reversal and remittal of an earlier judgment. The court found no evidence of a lease and granted that declaration. However, additional charges could arise from owners’ resolutions governing use of common property rather than a contract. Calling a charge rent did not change its legal basis. The company did not deny exclusive use of part of the stairwell. The relevant resolutions had not been invalidated, and the court found no grounds of nullity. It therefore refused a declaration of no payment duty. It also rejected the requested heating-area declaration and the related claim that 285.63 euros was not owed. This judgment did not itself award that sum for enforcement. The association must bear 25% of the company’s costs and the company 75% of the association’s costs, with amounts determined separately. Later, on 26 February 2021, Tartu Ringkonnakohus reversed the refusal of the remaining claims and the costs allocation, granting the claim in full. It held that the earlier tariffs applied only in the relevant financial years and that no basis for the additional charge after 2010 had been proved. It declared that the disputed charge was not payable, heating for 28.02.2011–31.01.2016 was payable on an area of 88.4 m², and the heating debt of 285.63 euros did not exist as at 31.01.2016. The association bears costs at both levels, with amounts to be fixed separately.

Outcome of this decision

Initially, the court declared that no lease existed and rejected the remaining claims; it did not award 285.63 euros, and costs were allocated 25%/75%. On 26 February 2021, Tartu Ringkonnakohus reversed the refusals and the costs allocation: it declared that the disputed charge was not payable, heating for 28.02.2011–31.01.2016 was payable on an area of 88.4 m², and the heating debt of 285.63 euros did not exist as at 31.01.2016. The association bears costs at both levels, with amounts to be fixed separately.
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-16-16599/17Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Stairwell and heating charges: judgment reversed and case remitted

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Osaühing Brainella · Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu · 10294480 · 80189721

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Defendant and appellant — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu; Claimant and respondent on appeal — Osaühing Brainella

Editorial summary

The association appealed a declaration that the company owed no stairwell and heating debt. The appellate court reversed for inadequate examination of the basis and calculation and remitted the case.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Osaühing Brainella sought a declaration that it owed Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu nothing for use and heating of a separated part of a stairwell. Its claim was clarified to 1354.51 euros. It disputed a 15.98 euros monthly charge and additional floor area used for heating. The first-instance court granted the claim and the association appealed. Tartu Ringkonnakohus found the claim’s scope, the charges’ legal basis and their amount inadequately examined. Absence of a proved lease did not yet exclude a possible charge under owners’ resolutions on common-property use. Those resolutions should not simply have been disregarded. The amended claim’s limits and burden of proof also required clarification. The court rejected the association’s limitation objection to the declaration claim itself. Its position might have a different significance for its monetary claim, but neither debt nor its absence was finally established. The 16.01.2018 judgment was reversed and the case remitted to the same court, with costs to follow the rehearing’s result. Success on appeal was not an award or cancellation of the disputed sum.

Outcome of this decision

The association’s appeal was granted. Viru Maakohus’s judgment of 16.01.2018 was reversed and the case remitted. The basis and amount of charges require further examination; no final debt was established. The first-instance court will decide costs according to the further outcome.
Not prepared yet

· Case 2-16-16599 · Viru Maakohus · First instance

2-20-11613

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu · 80069939

Apartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the board

Editorial summary

In a board-election dispute, the first-instance court temporarily prohibited new resolutions concerning the board and its members’ powers. The appellate court set the measure aside because the association, as a person concerned, could not request it in these proceedings.

· Court orderTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-20-11613/23Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Ban on new board elections: interim measure set aside

Court order · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu · 80069939

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant and appellant against the order — XX; Person concerned I — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu; Person concerned II — XX

Editorial summary

In a board-election dispute, the first-instance court temporarily prohibited new resolutions concerning the board and its members’ powers. The appellate court set the measure aside because the association, as a person concerned, could not request it in these proceedings.

The dispute and the court’s decision

XX challenged the 03.08.2020 repeat-meeting resolutions of Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu. The association sought appointment of a substitute board member or a ban on meetings until the dispute ended. Instead of banning all meetings, Viru Maakohus prohibited resolutions concerning the board and members’ authority during proceedings. XX appealed. Tartu Ringkonnakohus held that interim protection in these proceedings could be granted at the applicant’s request. The association was a person concerned and had brought no claim of its own, so it was not entitled to request the measure. Nor did public interest justify intervention to protect it without an applicant’s request. The appellate court set the order aside and itself refused the association’s interim-protection application. It did not determine the substantive validity of board elections. It also noted uncertainty about representatives acting under powers of attorney issued by different boards. The first-instance court must examine that issue and requests concerning participation in the case. Costs will be decided with the main case.

Outcome of this decision

The appeal was granted: the prohibition on resolutions concerning the board and its members’ powers was set aside and the association’s interim-protection request refused. This does not decide the elections’ validity. The first-instance court will determine costs in the final ruling.
2-20-137937

Narva linn, V. Gerassimovi tn 4 korteriühistu · 80170236

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

Editorial summary

Debt payable to the association was settled by agreement with six months of instalments.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-20-137937/3Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

V. Gerassimovi 4: settlement on debt and instalments

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, V. Gerassimovi tn 4 korteriühistu · 80170236

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant – Narva linn, V. Gerassimovi tn 4 korteriühistu; Debtor entering the agreement – XX

Editorial summary

Debt payable to the association was settled by agreement with six months of instalments.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court approved the agreement between Narva linn, V. Gerassimovi tn 4 korteriühistu and XX on instalment repayment of arrears and terminated the case. The demand against another debtor had previously been left unexamined; this agreement concerns XX alone. XX acknowledged an obligation covering management expenses, other payments, late-payment interest and litigation costs. It provides for six months of instalments payable at month-end. Late-payment interest of 0,02% per day accrues on unpaid management expenses and other payments; breach of the schedule makes the whole debt immediately payable. The court considered the agreement enforceable and lawful. Each bears its other costs; a court fee refund is to be resolved by separate ruling after finality. The court did not accept the parties’ waiver of appeal: it considered this impermissible in these proceedings. The ruling does not confirm performance of the schedule.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the six-month instalment agreement with XX and terminate proceedings. It provides for late-payment interest of 0,02% per day on unpaid management expenses and other payments and immediate payment of all debt if the schedule is breached. Decide the court fee refund separately; the appeal waiver was not accepted.
2-20-11532

Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 30a korteriühistu · 80170762

Documents and informationInspection and copies of documentsReporting and review of expenditure

Editorial summary

The demand for association documents ended with an agreement on their delivery.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-20-11532/17Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kreenholmi 30a: agreement to hand over association documents

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 30a korteriühistu · 80170762

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant – XX; Interested person – Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 30a korteriühistu

Editorial summary

The demand for association documents ended with an agreement on their delivery.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Applicant XX went to court to obtain access to documents of Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 30a korteriühistu. During the hearing, the participants agreed which documents the association would give the applicant. Viru Maakohus approved the settlement and terminated proceedings. The agreement lists the general meeting minutes of 18 June 2020 with attachments, participant list and powers of attorney; the 2019 financial and management audit report; that year’s management report; notice convening the June meeting; and the draft 2020 management and financial plan approved at that meeting. Delivery of these was provided for in the courtroom at the hearing on 19 November 2020. The association undertook to email the general meeting minutes of 20 August 2020 with attachments, participant lists and powers of attorney by 25 November, and the applicant to acknowledge receipt by return email. The association also undertook to reimburse half the applicant’s court fee, 25 euros. Each participant bears other costs not mentioned in the agreement. The court left the fee refund from the state budget to a separate ruling after finality. It considered the agreement permissible and enforceable, without separately finding a violation of the right to documents on the merits. The ruling records agreed delivery arrangements; it does not confirm receipt of every document.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the list of documents and handover arrangements and terminate proceedings. The association must reimburse the applicant 25 euros; refund of the court fee from the state budget is decided separately.
2-19-7145

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu · 80069939

Rights in real propertyOwnership and register entries

Editorial summary

The appeal concerned the auction’s validity and the duty to notify the debtor of it.

· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-19-7145/59Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 32: auction invalidated because debtor was not properly notified

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu · OÜ Feksinar · OÜ Aktiva Finants · 80069939 · · 10746479

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and appellant – XX; Defendant – bailiff XX; Defendants – purchasers XX and XX; Defendants – the association, OÜ Feksinar (bankrupt) and OÜ Aktiva Finants

Editorial summary

The appeal concerned the auction’s validity and the duty to notify the debtor of it.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The circuit court invalidated a repeat auction because debtor XX was not properly notified and ordered correction of the ownership entry. Claimant XX challenged the repeat auction at which an apartment was sold in enforcement proceedings on 10 April 2019. Defendants were the bailiff, two purchasers, Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu, bankrupt OÜ Feksinar and OÜ Aktiva Finants. The claimant alleged that notice was sent to an email address he did not use although the bailiff knew another address. He also relied on another co-owner’s rights. The bailiff and the other objecting defendants considered notification sufficient and relied on register data; the association did not respond to the claim. The county court dismissed it, considering publication and sending notice to the population register address sufficient. Tartu Ringkonnakohus set that judgment aside. It explained that the duty to inform the debtor of an auction notice’s contents applies to real estate sales too. This allows the debtor to object to the auction and protect their rights. The circuit court found that the bailiff had previously corresponded with the claimant at another address and had not proved using the register address for communication. In these circumstances, the risk of not receiving notice could not be placed on the debtor. The breach was substantial and the repeat auction was invalidated. The court ordered the purchasers to consent to amendment of the land register entry and registration of the claimant as owner; the judgment replaces their declarations of intent. Registration of the other co-owner is to be resolved under a separate judicial act, as no such demand was made in this claim. The claimant’s costs at both levels were imposed on the bailiff, to be quantified by the county court. The other participants bear their own costs.

Outcome of this decision

Set aside the county court judgment and grant the claim and appeal. Invalidate the repeat auction; the judgment replaces the purchasers’ consents to correction of the ownership entry. The bailiff bears the claimant’s costs.
2-19-138400

Narva linn, Vestervalli tn 14 korteriühistu · 80181062

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsInstalments and payment schedules

Editorial summary

The settlement makes a debt reduction conditional on proper payment and sets out the consequences of delay.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-19-138400/38Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Vestervalli tn 14: conditional reduction of debt

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Vestervalli tn 14 korteriühistu · 80181062

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, Vestervalli tn 14 korteriühistu; Person concerned, debtor — XX

Editorial summary

The settlement makes a debt reduction conditional on proper payment and sets out the consequences of delay.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Vestervalli tn 14 korteriühistu sought management-cost arrears from XX. After the case was transferred from expedited payment-order proceedings, the parties reached a settlement. The court approved it and ended the proceedings. The reduction of the acknowledged debt depends on proper payment of the agreed amount in equal instalments over one year. Interest of 8% per year applies to the unpaid amount. The association’s litigation costs are also paid by instalments. A late or incomplete payment makes the unpaid balance recoverable on the basis of the original debt without the reduction and the agreed costs. Proper performance settles the claims for the period covered by the agreement. The association was awarded a refund of 25 euros in state fees. The parties waived appeal. The order approves the terms but does not establish that they were performed.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the settlement and end the proceedings. The debt reduction depends on proper payment; interest of 8% per year applies to the unpaid amount. On breach, the unpaid balance of the original debt without the reduction and the agreed costs becomes recoverable. Refund 25 euros in state fees to the association.