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
2-14-58807

Narva linn, Linda tn 1 korteriühistu · 80180424

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

Latest prepared act · · № 2-14-58807/10

Editorial summary

The settlement replaced the default judgment: the court set it aside, approved instalments and terminated proceedings.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 1 · Unprepared stages: 1
· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-58807/10Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Linda 1: settlement after a default judgment was set aside

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Linda 1 · 80180424

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — KÜ Linda 1; Defendant — XX

Editorial summary

The settlement replaced the default judgment: the court set it aside, approved instalments and terminated proceedings.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Linda 1 (now — Narva linn, Linda tn 1 korteriühistu) claimed debt and late-payment interest from XX. After the claim was granted by default on 04.11.2014, the participants submitted a settlement. The court approved it, set aside the earlier default judgment in full and terminated proceedings. The judgment was set aside because of the settlement, not because no debt was found to exist. XX acknowledged the debt and agreed to reimburse 395 euros in the association’s costs. Monthly payments over 12 months and early repayment are provided for. The association waived further late-payment interest if the agreement is complied with. Current invoices are payable separately. A late instalment makes the entire debt enforceable with late-payment interest; the rate on the amount that has become due is 0.1% per day. Performance settles the mutual claims dealt with in this case. Costs were allocated and fixed by agreement. The association is to receive a refund of 125 euros, half the state fee. By agreement, the interlocutory appeal period was shortened to 2 days after service, with an outer limit of five months after the order. The act does not establish performance of the schedule or receipt of the refund.

Outcome of this decision

The settlement was approved, the default judgment of 04.11.2014 set aside and proceedings terminated. Debt and agreed costs are payable by instalments; delay allows full recovery with late-payment interest of 0.1% per day. Refund 125 euros in state fees to the association.
Not prepared yet

· Case 2-14-58807 · Viru Maakohus · First instance

2-14-58806

Narva linn, Linda tn 1 korteriühistu · 80180424

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

Editorial summary

The association’s debt settlement combines instalments, payment of current invoices and consequences of breaching the schedule.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-58806/6Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Linda 1: debt instalments and consequences of delay

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Linda 1 · 80180424

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — KÜ Linda 1; Defendant — XX

Editorial summary

The association’s debt settlement combines instalments, payment of current invoices and consequences of breaching the schedule.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Linda 1 (now — Narva linn, Linda tn 1 korteriühistu) brought a debt claim against XX. The court approved a settlement and terminated proceedings without a separate decision on the merits of the original claim. XX acknowledged principal and accrued late-payment interest. The agreement provides for monthly payments over 23 months, permits early payment and includes reimbursement of 395 euros in the association’s procedural costs. The association waived further late-payment interest if the agreement is complied with. Current invoices must be paid separately from the instalments. A late instalment allows enforcement of the entire debt with late-payment interest; 0.1% per day applies to the amount that has become due. Performance of the agreed obligation settles the mutual claims in this case. Costs were allocated according to the settlement; the association’s unlisted costs and XX’s costs remain with each participant. The court made no separate monetary costs assessment because the participants did not request one. A refund of half the state fee will be decided by a separate order after this order’s entry into force. The parties shortened the time for an interlocutory appeal to 2 days after service; the court also stated an outer limit of five months after the order. Performance of the schedule is not established.

Outcome of this decision

The instalment settlement was approved and proceedings terminated. Delay allows enforcement of the debt with late-payment interest of 0.1% per day on the amount that has become due. Costs follow the settlement; the state-fee refund is decided separately.
2-14-24247

Narva linn, Rakvere tn 34 korteriühistu · 80175512

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

Editorial summary

After transfer from payment-order proceedings, the association did not meet the requirements for a claim and an additional state fee.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-24247/11Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Rakvere 34: debt claim not admitted after payment-order proceedings

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KORTERIÜHISTU RAKVERE 34 NARVA · 80175512

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — KORTERIÜHISTU RAKVERE 34 NARVA; Debtor named in the application — XX

Editorial summary

After transfer from payment-order proceedings, the association did not meet the requirements for a claim and an additional state fee.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KORTERIÜHISTU RAKVERE 34 NARVA (now — Narva linn, Rakvere tn 34 korteriühistu) claimed debt and late-payment interest from XX. Pärnu Maakohus ended expedited payment-order proceedings and transferred the claim to Viru Maakohus for civil proceedings. The court required a proper claim with grounds and evidence, and an additional state fee, within 14 days. After service of the order, the association submitted no claim in the required form and paid no supplement. The court found the payment-order application in the information system insufficient: supporting documents were not attached. The claim value included principal, accrued late-payment interest and future late-payment interest. The court stated a 200-euro state fee, 45 euros already paid and 155 euros outstanding; the additional-payment requirement was not met. The court refused admission to civil proceedings and imposed the costs on the association. The application is treated as not filed; this order neither examined the debt on its merits nor awarded it. An interlocutory appeal lies to Tartu Ringkonnakohus through Viru Maakohus within 15 days after service, no later than five months after the order. The result of any further appeal is unknown.

Outcome of this decision

The association’s application was not admitted to civil proceedings because no proper claim or supplementary state fee was submitted. The association bears the costs. Refusal of admission does not establish that no debt existed.
2-13-34554

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 44 korteriühistu · 80183227

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayBills and justification of chargesRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairsApartment association meetings and decisionsBudget, management plan and rates

Latest prepared act · · № 2-13-34554/54

Editorial summary

The court added reasons to its earlier judgment in favour of the apartment association Tallinna 44: defendant XX was ordered to pay a 40-euro special contribution, 7,16 euros in late-payment interest and 190 euros in costs.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 1 · Unprepared stages: 1
· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-13-34554/54Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

A supplemented judgment explained the award of 40 euros for replacing electrical panels

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Tallinna 44 · 80183227

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant KÜ Tallinna 44 – sought the special contribution.; Defendant XX – disputed the basis for the contribution and late-payment interest.

Editorial summary

The court added reasons to its earlier judgment in favour of the apartment association Tallinna 44: defendant XX was ordered to pay a 40-euro special contribution, 7,16 euros in late-payment interest and 190 euros in costs.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The association sought an unpaid special contribution for replacing electrical panels, set by the meeting of 4 May 2011. The defendant argued that an equal contribution was inconsistent with the floor-area allocation in the articles, that no separate decision authorised late-payment interest, and that less had been spent on the work than collected. On 11 July 2014, the court granted the claim in an abbreviated judgment. After the defendant announced an intention to appeal, the court added the account of the case and its reasons. The award remained unchanged. The court found that the decision establishing the contribution had not been challenged and remained binding on the defendant. The unpaid 40 euros was supported by the calculation, accounts and minutes. The defendant had attended the meeting and received invoices stating a payment deadline of 30 November 2011. A total of 4 400 euros was collected for replacing the panels and 3 669,31 euros spent. The court concluded that the balance had been carried into the following year’s plan; the defendant had not challenged the decisions approving the report and plan either. The court derived the board’s right to charge late-payment interest from the law, so it did not require a separate meeting decision. The award comprised a 40-euro contribution and 7,16 euros in late-payment interest as at 1 May 2013, totalling 47,16 euros. Costs awarded were 60 euros in court fees and 130 euros for legal assistance, totalling 190 euros. The part of the court fee paid above the necessary amount was not imposed on the defendant: the claimant was informed of the right to seek reimbursement from the state budget.

Outcome of this decision

Supplement the judgment of 11 July 2014 with an account of the case and reasons. Order defendant XX to pay the apartment association Tallinna 44 a debt of 40 euros, 7,16 euros in late-payment interest and 190 euros in costs.
Not prepared yet

· Case 2-13-34554 · Viru Maakohus · First instance

2-12-8284

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 21 korteriühistu · 80228958

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesLate-payment interest and consequences of delayPayment accounting and set-off

Latest prepared act · · № 2-12-8284/95

Editorial summary

The appeal court partly allowed defendant XX’s appeal on costs and awarded the defendant 411 euros against the apartment association Tallinna mnt 21 Narva.

Related prepared acts from this case are also shown.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 4 · Unprepared stages: 3
· RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-12-8284/95Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Costs awarded to the defendant increased from 333 to 411 euros

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ Tallinna mnt 21 Narva · 80228958

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Apartment association Tallinna mnt 21 Narva — claimant in the main case and respondent to the costs appeal.; Defendant XX — appellant and recipient of the costs award.

Editorial summary

The appeal court partly allowed defendant XX’s appeal on costs and awarded the defendant 411 euros against the apartment association Tallinna mnt 21 Narva.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The association had previously brought a debt claim against XX. According to the history described in this act, the claim was dismissed, that dismissal was upheld on appeal and costs were allocated to the association. The defendant then applied for recoverable representation costs of 620 euros. The first award of 333 euros was set aside on procedural grounds and remitted for reconsideration; on 21 April 2014, the county court again awarded 333 euros. The defendant appealed regarding the amount not awarded. In the present ruling, the court found a further 78 euros justified for assistance in preparing the defence: 1,3 hours at 60 euros. The fact that the participant signed the document personally did not rule out work by a representative. The file contained a power of attorney, confirmation from the participant and the representative’s signatures on attachments, which the court considered sufficient. Other disputed costs, including 140 and 60 euros for separate documents, were not accepted: representation at the relevant stage had not been proved, and one document went beyond the explanations permitted. The first-instance ruling was set aside as to the amount, and 411 euros was awarded instead of 333 euros. The association’s argument about maximum rates was rejected by reference to the relevant rules having been declared unconstitutional. The costs of this appeal against the ruling are not reimbursed separately. The underlying debt is not reconsidered in this act.

Outcome of this decision

Set aside the Viru Maakohus ruling of 21 April 2014 as to the amount of costs and order the apartment association Tallinna mnt 21 Narva to pay defendant XX 411 euros. Do not reimburse the costs of the present appeal against the ruling.
Not prepared yet

· Case 2-12-8284 · Viru Maakohus · First instance

· Court orderTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-12-8284/81Read actAppeal

Separate act page

KÜ Tallinna mnt 21 Narva: a judge must determine the costs afresh

Court order · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ Tallinna mnt 21 Narva · 80228958

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: costs applicant and defendant in the main case — XX; XX’s representative — XX; party liable for costs and claimant in the main case — KÜ Tallinna mnt 21 Narva; association’s representative — XX

Editorial summary

The parties disputed recoverable representation costs after a debt case. The order was set aside because a judicial lawyer, rather than a judge, had decided the question.

The dispute and the court’s decision

After the association’s debt claim, XX sought a determination of recoverable representation costs. Costs in the county and circuit courts had previously been allocated to KÜ Tallinna mnt 21 Narva. The county court allowed the costs application only in part. The parties disputed the representative’s work, proof of involvement, necessity and the applicable recovery limit. XX appealed against the refusal to allow the remainder. The circuit court set aside the order of 5 December 2013 for a reason independent of the appeal arguments: a judicial lawyer, rather than a judge, had determined the costs. Relying on the Supreme Court decision of 4 February 2014, the court explained that determining recoverable costs constitutes the administration of justice, not a technical calculation. It involves assessing the necessity and reasonableness of representation, the complexity of the case and the time spent. A judge must make that assessment. A judge’s later forwarding of the appeal did not replace participation in deciding the costs application. The application was returned for a fresh hearing. Individual cost items and the underlying debt dispute were not decided by this order.

Outcome of this decision

The county court order of 5 December 2013 was set aside and XX’s application to determine recoverable costs returned for a fresh hearing. The individual arguments about costs were not determined on their merits.
Not prepared yet

· Case 2-12-8284 · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Not prepared yet

· Case 2-12-8284 · Riigikohus · Cassation

· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-12-8284/41Read actAppeal

Separate act page

KÜ Tallinna mnt 21: dismissal was upheld because the debt calculation was unclear

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ Tallinna mnt 21 · 80228958

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and appellant — KÜ Tallinna mnt 21; association’s representative — XX; defendant — XX

Editorial summary

The association claimed a debt, but differing calculations did not establish its period or amount. The circuit court upheld dismissal of the claim.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Tallinna mnt 21 sought management-charge arrears and late-payment interest from XX. XX denied the debt and referred to payments, disputed interest and amounts from an earlier court case appearing in the calculations. The county court dismissed the claim because the association had not produced a clear, verifiable calculation. The circuit court agreed. The documents gave inconsistent figures for principal and interest, and the period during which the alleged debt arose remained unclear. Opportunities to clarify the claim, additional tables and a reduction did not explain how the balance developed. The court did not consider it inherently impermissible to show previously adjudicated amounts on an invoice or to follow the statutory payment-allocation sequence where the parties had not designated an obligation. But that did not make this claim clear. The court did not simply establish double recovery: the calculation also covered the earlier case period and did not allow the new claim to be traced. The association had not credibly rebutted XX’s objections, calculations and evidence of payments. The judgment of 15 October 2012 remained unchanged and the appeal was dismissed. Costs in both courts were allocated to the association. The result concerns the claim examined, rather than all possible future charges.

Outcome of this decision

The county court judgment of 15 October 2012 remained unchanged and the association’s appeal was dismissed. No award was made on the claim examined. County and circuit court costs were allocated to the association.
· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-12-8284/25Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 21: debt claim dismissed because the calculation was unclear and included earlier awards

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Tallinna mnt 21 Narva · 80228958

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — KÜ Tallinna mnt 21 Narva; Defendant — XX, who disputed the debt calculation

Editorial summary

The association did not prove a new debt balance: its calculation included earlier awards and did not properly account for payments received.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Tallinna mnt 21 Narva claimed a debt from XX. During the proceedings it revised the principal claim and withdrew its entire late-payment interest claim. XX argued that current payments had been made and that the new calculation repeated sums and costs already awarded in another case and subject to enforcement. The court dismissed the claim in full. It found that the calculation did include sums from the earlier case while enforcement of that award was taking place. An already adjudicated claim could not be decided again in these proceedings. Despite an opportunity to clarify the claim, the association did not isolate and substantiate a specific new debt with proper supporting documents. An account statement also confirmed substantial payments during the disputed period. The association acknowledged regular receipts but had not kept track of their total. The evidence did not establish the existence and amount of the claimed balance unambiguously. This judgment neither sets aside the earlier award nor declares that all future obligations to the association are absent. The association bears all proceedings costs, without an amount being fixed. No late-payment interest was awarded after the association withdrew that part of its claim.

Outcome of this decision

The debt claim was dismissed for lack of a specific, substantiated calculation. The association withdrew the interest claim and bears all costs. The earlier award was not set aside.
2-08-12127

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 10 korteriühistu · 80038614

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesLate-payment interest and consequences of delayHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesRepairs and shared propertyRoof and atticOrganisation and funding of repairs

Editorial summary

The court considered OÜ Filmarinar’s appeal against the Viru Maakohus judgment of 08.05.2012 on the apartment association Puškini 10’s claim for building management costs, earmarked contributions and late-payment interest. The claim after increases was 6 030,64 euros.

· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-08-12127/46Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Apartment association Puškini 10 v OÜ Filmarinar: award reduced, some utility costs unproven

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ Puškini 10 · OÜ Filmarinar · 80038614 · 10294341

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — KÜ Puškini 10; respondent to the appeal; defendant — OÜ Filmarinar; appellant; claimant’s representative XX — association’s statutory representative; defendant’s representative XX — company’s statutory representative

Editorial summary

The court considered OÜ Filmarinar’s appeal against the Viru Maakohus judgment of 08.05.2012 on the apartment association Puškini 10’s claim for building management costs, earmarked contributions and late-payment interest. The claim after increases was 6 030,64 euros.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Puškini 10 sought payment from OÜ Filmarinar for building maintenance, earmarked contributions and services for the period from 1 March 2007 to 1 March 2011. After increases to the claim, the total was 6 030,64 euros. The association relied on an earlier agreement, meeting decisions, invoices and a schedule of charges. The defendant challenged the proof of costs, the documents and contractual grounds, as well as late-payment interest of 0,2% per day. On 8 May 2012, Viru Maakohus granted the claim in full. On the defendant’s appeal, the circuit court decided the case without remitting it to the first instance. It stated that an association member’s duty to pay for management of the building arises from the law; the existence of a document called an agreement does not itself make the relationship contractual. However, grounds for treating the earlier agreement as invalid or terminated had not been properly pleaded or proved in these proceedings. The court found the maintenance charge and earmarked roof repair contributions established by meeting decisions proven. For heating, waste collection and internet, however, the association’s invoices alone were insufficient: the actual costs and their allocation had to be proved. No additional evidence was submitted even after the appeal court invited it. That part of the claim was dismissed. The court also rejected the possibility of increasing by contract the statutory late-payment interest ceiling then applicable of 0,07% per day. The defendant’s allegations of damage were not determined as a counterclaim because no proper counterclaim had been filed. The appeal was partly allowed. The first-instance judgment was set aside, and a new judgment awarded 4 440,26 euros: 2 195,98 euros in principal and 2 244,28* euros in late-payment interest. Costs at both instances were allocated 73% to OÜ Filmarinar and 27% to the association.

Outcome of this decision

Set aside the Viru Maakohus judgment of 08.05.2012. Issue a new judgment partly granting the claim: order OÜ Filmarinar to pay the apartment association Puškini 10 a total of 4 440,26 euros for 01.03.2007–01.03.2011, comprising 2 195,98 euros in principal and 2 244,28* euros in late-payment interest. Partly allow the appeal. Allocate first-instance and appeal costs: 73% to OÜ Filmarinar and 27% to the apartment association Puškini 10.
2-08-63694

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 2a korteriühistu · 80245744

Repairs and shared propertyFaçade, windows and balconiesOrganisation and funding of repairsApartment association bills, payments and debtsBills and justification of chargesDebt claimsApartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeBudget, management plan and ratesLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

Editorial summary

An incorrect allocation method did not invalidate the entire repair decision.

· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-08-63694/26Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Repair contributions and allocation by area

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Korteriühistu Narva Sõbralik · 80245744

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and appellant — Korteriühistu Narva Sõbralik; defendant and respondent on appeal — XX; claimant representative XX

Editorial summary

An incorrect allocation method did not invalidate the entire repair decision.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Korteriühistu Narva Sõbralik (now — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 2a korteriühistu). Korteriühistu Narva Sõbralik claimed earmarked facade and balcony repair contributions and late-payment interest from XX. The defendant disputed equal per-apartment contributions and the decision-making procedure. The county court refused the claim. The circuit court agreed that allocation contravened law and the charter but held only that part void, meaning legally ineffective: area-based allocation replaces it, while the decision to collect funds survives. Discussion of the management plan covered repairs and funding; defective notice was not established. Work and expenditure were proved. The share-based calculation exceeded the claim, so only the amount claimed was allowed and the refusal overturned. XX bears costs in both instances. A 2010 meeting decision provided an additional basis. The judgment does not endorse the original equal allocation or establish later payment.

Outcome of this decision

Refusal overturned and claim allowed within its limits; XX bears costs in both instances.
2-08-53183

KÜ XX · OÜ Analan Auto

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesLate-payment interest and consequences of delayContracts and servicesBuilding servicesWater and seweragePipes, risers and sewerage

Editorial summary

The circuit court set aside dismissal of the maintenance and service-charge claim. The association must prove the costs and their allocation; the case was remitted without an award.

· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-08-53183/43Read actAppeal

Separate act page

An anonymised association and OÜ Analan Auto: dismissal was set aside and the case remitted

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ XX · OÜ Analan Auto · · 10339202

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and appellant — KÜ XX; association’s representative — XX; defendant — OÜ Analan Auto; defendant’s representative — XX

Editorial summary

The circuit court set aside dismissal of the maintenance and service-charge claim. The association must prove the costs and their allocation; the case was remitted without an award.

The dispute and the court’s decision

An association whose name is concealed in the source sought maintenance charges, utility payments and late-payment interest from OÜ Analan Auto. The claim was increased to 29 595 kroons. The association relied on a maintenance contract. The company disputed the services, calculation and interest, and referred to sewer problems. The county court dismissed the claim because the invoices did not establish what was payable or how much. The circuit court set aside the judgment in full and remitted the case; it did not award the amount claimed. A non-residential owner’s obligation to contribute to necessary management costs arises from statute, not solely from a maintenance contract. The association must nevertheless prove the costs’ composition, quantity, price and amount, and equal allocation principles for other owners. The contract and invoices did not themselves establish this. However, an invoice to an owner does not inherently have to satisfy every requirement for an accounting source document. The court directed use of the statutory late-payment rate. Material facts had not been established. The fresh proceedings must clarify the claim and evidence and allow the defendant to respond. The sewer materials were considered irrelevant to deciding this claim; the system is common property. The court did not establish that it was in proper condition or decide a separate damages claim. Costs remained for the county court.

Outcome of this decision

The county court judgment of 18 December 2009 was set aside in full and the case remitted to the same county court. The 29 595 kroons claimed were not awarded by this judgment. Costs were left for the fresh proceedings.