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
2-18-5132

Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 38 korteriühistu · 80152617

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of charges

Editorial summary

The parties disputed when the claimant’s demand was satisfied; that determined who should bear costs.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-18-5132/15Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kreenholmi 38: costs allocated to association after claimant waived the claim

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Kreenholmi 38 · 80152617

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — XX; Defendant — KÜ Kreenholmi 38

Editorial summary

The parties disputed when the claimant’s demand was satisfied; that determined who should bear costs.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court accepted XX’s waiver of the claim against KÜ Kreenholmi 38 and terminated the case seeking a declaration of no debt. Costs were allocated to the association: it must pay the claimant 37,50 euros, and a further 37,50 euros in fees was ordered refunded from the budget after entry into force. The claimant applied on 3 April 2018 to challenge the charged debt. On 3 May, the claimant waived the claim because the demand had been satisfied and requested costs against the association. The association agreed to termination but insisted the dispute had been resolved before the claim was filed, so each should bear its own costs. The court disagreed. A March invoice attached to the claim still showed the disputed debt. It concluded that the association satisfied the demand immediately after the claim arrived. It also noted that the charging dispute had remained unresolved for more than a year since December 2016 while interest accrued. Seeking judicial protection was considered justified. The claimant paid a 75 euro fee. Due to waiver, the court ordered half refunded from the budget and awarded the other half against the association. There were no other proven costs. The ruling ended the case through waiver rather than a separate determination of the amount or absence of debt. Actual receipt of the awarded and refunded money is not confirmed.

Outcome of this decision

Accept waiver and terminate proceedings. The association bears costs: award the claimant 37,50 euros against it, with a further 37,50 euros in fees refunded from the budget after entry into force.
2-18-9342

Narva linn, V. Gerassimovi tn 14 korteriühistu · 80152801

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

Editorial summary

The association obtained a default award of debt and court costs. The court applied the consequences of no response to a served claim.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-18-9342/3Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

V. Gerassimovi tn 14: debt awarded by default after no response

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, V. Gerassimovi tn 14 korteriühistu · 80152801

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — apartment association; defendant XX — owner; association’s representative XX

Editorial summary

The association obtained a default award of debt and court costs. The court applied the consequences of no response to a served claim.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court awarded Narva linn, V. Gerassimovi tn 14 korteriühistu debt against owner XX by default. The defendant did not respond after service of the documents and a warning of the consequences. The association alleged that the owner had not paid building maintenance and utility costs and sought recovery of the debt. The judgment contains no objections from the defendant. The court found that service was proper and the response period had expired. Under the default rules, it treated the association’s factual assertions as admitted and granted the claim based on the owner’s duty to pay maintenance costs. The act contains no detailed analysis of individual charges. The court also awarded 310 euros in costs: a 250 euro fee and 60 euros for a representative to prepare the claim. It found these necessary and justified. The judgment was made immediately enforceable; this does not confirm that the money has already been paid.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the claim by default judgment. Award the association debt and 310 euros in costs against XX. The judgment is immediately enforceable.
2-18-7037

Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 12 korteriühistu · 80170609

Apartment association meetings and decisions

Editorial summary

The association accepted member XX’s request for a finding of nullity of the meeting decision. The court approved an agreement providing 675 euros in costs to the applicant.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-18-7037/6Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Daumani 12: association acknowledged nullity of a meeting decision, court approved the agreement

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Korteriühistu Daumani 12 · 80170609

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant XX — association member; interested person — Korteriühistu Daumani 12; parties’ representatives XX

Editorial summary

The association accepted member XX’s request for a finding of nullity of the meeting decision. The court approved an agreement providing 675 euros in costs to the applicant.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court approved an agreement between association member XX and Korteriühistu Daumani 12 and ended the case challenging the meeting decision of 1 February 2018. The association accepted the request for a finding of nullity, meaning that the decision had no legal effect from adoption. The parties said that after negotiations they considered further proceedings unnecessary. The ruling does not disclose the original breaches in adopting the decision or the association’s objections. The approved outcome rests on agreed terms rather than a separate detailed examination of those breaches. The association undertook to reimburse the applicant 675 euros in costs within ten days after the ruling entered into force. The court checked the participants’ authority to settle and the admissibility and enforceability of the terms, and confirmed the agreed costs allocation. The parties agreed to shorten the appeal period against the ruling to three days. The act does not confirm actual payment of costs.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement: the association accepts the request concerning nullity of the decision of 01.02.2018 and pays applicant XX 675 euros in costs within ten days after the ruling enters into force. Terminate the case; allocate costs under the agreement.
2-16-129462

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 47b korteriühistu · 80145356

Contracts and servicesWorks contracts and designQuality and acceptance of worksPayment, advance payments and refundsRepairs and shared propertyFaçade, windows and balconiesOrganisation and funding of repairsApartment association bills, payments and debtsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayPayment accounting and set-off

Latest prepared act · · № 2-16-129462/83

Editorial summary

The appeal court rejected the association’s repair reimbursement claim and retained its obligation to pay the contractor, adding late-payment interest. Evidence of defects at the alleged time and notification was insufficient.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 2 · Unprepared stages: 1
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-16-129462/83Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Kangelaste 47b: appeal court rejected association’s repair correction costs and awarded payment to contractor

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ Kangelaste 47b · Mirstart OÜ · 80145356 · 1123439

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: contractor Mirstart OÜ – claimant and defendant to the joined demand, appellant; apartment association – customer, defendant and claimant on the joined demand, appellant; parties’ representatives and expert XX

Editorial summary

The appeal court rejected the association’s repair reimbursement claim and retained its obligation to pay the contractor, adding late-payment interest. Evidence of defects at the alleged time and notification was insufficient.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The circuit court allowed Mirstart OÜ’s appeal and dismissed the apartment association Kangelaste 47b’s appeal. After review, the association was ordered to pay the contractor 3 039,27* euros in outstanding fees, 1 017,61 euros in accrued late-payment interest and continuing statutory late-payment interest. The association’s claim for the cost of correcting works was dismissed. The contractor repaired the plinth and lintel and installed two canopies. The association alleged that facing panels began detaching and that the contractor had been notified but did not remedy the defects. It hired another company and sought reimbursement, taking account of the unpaid part of the original work. The contractor disputed the defects at the stated time and proper notification. The first-instance court granted the contractor’s monetary claim without interest, recognised the association’s claim and set them off. The association appealed only the allocation of costs; the contractor appealed the award to the association and refusal of interest. The circuit court assessed the evidence differently. Photographs from September 2016 did not establish the state of works in summer 2015: by the time of photography, the new contractor could already have started dismantling. A copy of a letter did not prove receipt. Board minutes without the contractor representative’s signature proved neither participation nor notification of defects. A new paid contract for filling joints also did not prove an agreement to remedy defects in the former work. It contained no such reference. The association had not proved defects at the alleged time, notification or a deadline for remedy; the contractual procedure for engaging an expert had also not been followed. The set-off and earlier award in favour of the association were therefore set aside. Costs at both levels were imposed on the association, to be quantified separately by the county court. Dismissal of the association’s claim concerns proof of the conditions for liability, rather than an established absence of any defects in the repairs.

Outcome of this decision

Grant Mirstart OÜ’s claim and dismiss the association’s claim. Award 3 039,27* euros in principal, 1 017,61 euros in accrued late-payment interest and statutory late-payment interest on principal from the judgment date until payment against the association. Allow the contractor’s appeal and dismiss the association’s. The association bears costs at both levels, to be quantified separately.
· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-129462/71Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kangelaste 47b and Mirstart OÜ: defective works, costs and set-off

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Mirstart OÜ · KÜ Kangelaste 47b · 11234391 · 80145356

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and counterclaim defendant — Mirstart OÜ; defendant and counterclaimant — KÜ Kangelaste 47b

Editorial summary

Defects justified withholding payment and recovery of repair costs, with the final result determined by set-off.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Kangelaste 47b (now — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 47b korteriühistu). Mirstart OÜ sought the outstanding price of construction works and late-payment interest from KÜ Kangelaste 47b. The association counterclaimed for the cost of remedying defects. The cases were joined after proceedings on earlier default judgments were reopened. The works included renewal of the plinth and paving and installation of canopies. The court found the defective cladding proved by photographs: tiles had fallen off extensively soon after handover. Acceptance did not prevent reliance on defects. The documents as a whole showed timely knowledge by the contractor, which failed to remedy them within a reasonable time. Third-party repair costs of 5544 euros were found necessary and reasonable. Lawful withholding of the price balance was temporary; the court did not find a price reduction or effective withdrawal from the contract. Once the cost claim was allowed, the basis for withholding ended, so principal of 3039.27 euros* was upheld. Late-payment interest of 683.21 euros was refused because lawful withholding was not late performance. Further late-payment interest was also refused because the mutual claims were set off. The court allowed the counterclaim and applied set-off, awarding the association 2500 euros* against Mirstart OÜ. Each party bears its costs. Payment of that award was not established.

Outcome of this decision

The principal claim was allowed for 3039.27 euros* without late-payment interest; following the counterclaim and set-off, 2500 euros* was awarded to the association against Mirstart OÜ.
Not prepared yet

· Case 2-16-129462

2-18-3506

Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 44 korteriühistu · 80158672

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

Editorial summary

The association obtained a default award of debt and litigation costs after no response to the claim served by public notice.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-18-3506/8Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kreenholmi tn 44: debt and costs awarded by default after service of the claim by public notice

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 44 korteriühistu · 80158672

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant – apartment association; defendant XX – owner; association representative XX

Editorial summary

The association obtained a default award of debt and litigation costs after no response to the claim served by public notice.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court awarded Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 44 korteriühistu building maintenance arrears and 325 euros in costs against owner XX by default. The defendant did not respond after service of the claim by public notice. The association sought payment of building maintenance charges. The court accepted the claim and stated that the papers were served through Ametlikud Teadaanded. The defendant was allowed 28 days to respond and warned of a possible default judgment, but no response arrived within that time. The court applied the default rules and granted the claim. Of the costs awarded, 175 euros was the court fee and 150 euros representative’s services. The text contains no detailed assessment of every charge. The judgment is immediately enforceable. The court also ordered service of it by public notice because no place for service or authorised recipient was known. The judgment provides that service is deemed completed 15 days after publication of the excerpt. This text establishes neither the actual publication date nor payment of the award.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the claim by default. Award the association debt and 325 euros in costs against XX: a 175-euro court fee and 150 euros for representative’s services. Make the judgment immediately enforceable and serve it by public notice; deem service completed 15 days after publication of the excerpt.
2-14-62722

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 42 korteriühistu · 80054903

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesChanges to or disconnection from heatingApartment association meetings and decisionsBudget, management plan and rates

Latest prepared act · · № 2-14-62722/89

Editorial summary

The association and XX ended two opposing claims by agreement. Settlement of their mutual demands was made conditional on payment.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 2 · Unprepared stages: 1
· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-62722/89Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 42: mutual maintenance and heating dispute ended by a 5 000-euro agreement

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 42 korteriühistu · 80054903

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: apartment association – claimant in the debt claim and defendant in the other claim; XX – debt defendant and claimant in the charges dispute; parties’ representatives XX

Editorial summary

The association and XX ended two opposing claims by agreement. Settlement of their mutual demands was made conditional on payment.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court approved the agreement between Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 42 korteriühistu and XX to end two opposing claims concerning maintenance and heating. XX undertook to pay the association the agreed amount within three months after the agreement enters into force. The case involved the association’s debt claim and XX’s claim against it concerning charges. The ruling gives no detailed calculations or objections. After payment, the parties regard mutual demands for the agreed period as resolved: both unpaid invoices and possible recalculations in XX’s favour. The court checked the agreement’s permissibility and enforceability and terminated proceedings. It did not separately establish the correctness of every previous charge. The hearing was cancelled and each party bears its own costs; partial court fee refunds will be decided by separate rulings. This ruling establishes neither performance of the agreement nor refund of the fees.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement for XX to pay the association the agreed amount within three months after the agreement enters into force. After payment, mutual demands for the agreed period are settled. Terminate proceedings and cancel the hearing; each bears its own costs. Court fee refunds are decided separately.
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-14-62722/55Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 42: heating charges, rates and clarification of claims

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ Tallinna mnt 42 · 80054903

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and appellant — owner XX; defendant — KÜ Tallinna mnt 42

Editorial summary

A majority resolution does not replace all owners’ agreement on a different allocation of expenses.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Tallinna mnt 42 (now — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 42 korteriühistu). Owner XX disputed maintenance and heating charges with KÜ Tallinna mnt 42. The association relied on meeting resolutions imposing an additional charge for each individual room with altered heating equal to 50% of the apartment’s total heating cost and setting the area used for charging. The owner sought recalculation or a declaration that no debt existed. The first-instance court dismissed the claim, relying in part on unchallenged meeting resolutions. The appellate court reversed and remitted. After repeated amendments, it remained unclear which claims the first-instance court had decided. The court should have discussed the available legal protection and explained that compulsory recalculation as formulated had no independent substantive basis; a declaration of no debt was possible. Allocating common expenses otherwise than in proportion to ownership shares requires all owners’ consent. A meeting resolution without unanimity does not replace that agreement; failure to challenge it in time did not resolve this issue. Evidence and the existence of debt must be examined on rehearing. The appeal was allowed in part, with costs to be allocated by the first-instance court according to the final outcome.

Outcome of this decision

The judgment was reversed and the case remitted to clarify the claims and examine the debt; no specific recalculation was ordered.
Not prepared yet

· Case 2-14-62722 · Viru Maakohus · First instance

2-17-9837

Narva linn, Turu tn 3 korteriühistu · 80228912

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayObligations of multiple owners

Editorial summary

The court did not examine the debt on its merits: under the legal assistance treaty applied, it lacked jurisdiction to resolve the dispute against these defendants.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-9837/11Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Turu tn 3: debt claim left without examination for lack of Estonian court jurisdiction

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Turu tn 3 korteriühistu · 80228912

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant – apartment association; defendants – three owners XX; association representative XX

Editorial summary

The court did not examine the debt on its merits: under the legal assistance treaty applied, it lacked jurisdiction to resolve the dispute against these defendants.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court left the claim by Narva linn, Turu tn 3 korteriühistu, also called NARTUR-3, against three owners XX without examination. It considered that it had no power to decide the case under the international jurisdiction rules applied. The debt itself was not examined on its merits. The association sought utility arrears and late-payment interest jointly and severally. Such an award would mean a shared obligation, rather than a separate full amount from each defendant. After unsuccessful delivery to the apartment address, the court investigated where the defendants lived. On the information received and the court’s findings, they lived in Russia and were Russian citizens. The court sent requests for consent to hearing the dispute in Estonia. The requests were received, but none supplied written consent. Applying the Estonian-Russian legal assistance treaty then in force, the court linked jurisdiction to the defendants’ residence or the parties’ written consent. Absence of that consent led it to leave the claim without examination. The court explained the possibility of bringing the same demand again; it did not declare that the debt was absent. Costs were left with the association, with no specific amounts reimbursable to other participants. The association was informed of its right to request a refund of the 125-euro court fee paid; this ruling did not itself order a refund.

Outcome of this decision

Leave the association’s claim against three defendants XX without examination. The association bears costs; no amounts are reimbursable to other participants.
2-17-1555

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu · 80183301

Parking and groundsConstruction of parking facilitiesUse of shared landBarriers, permits and accessApartment association meetings and decisionsVoting and representationConvening meetings and advance noticeAgenda and minutes

Latest prepared act · · № 2-17-1555/38

Editorial summary

Owner XX did not obtain a declaration that the December parking decision was void. The appeal court did not examine the new dispute over the April decision on its merits.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 1 · Unprepared stages: 1
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-17-1555/38Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Kerese 6: parking decision not declared void; new demand on appeal left unexamined

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu · 80183301

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and appellant XX – owner; defendant – apartment association; parties’ representatives XX

Editorial summary

Owner XX did not obtain a declaration that the December parking decision was void. The appeal court did not examine the new dispute over the April decision on its merits.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The circuit court upheld the refusal to declare the apartment association Kerese 6 parking decision of 20 December 2016 void. It left the demand concerning a separate decision of 13 April 2016 unexamined because no such demand had been made at first instance. Owner XX challenged approval of the parking project, tree felling and pruning, and installation of road signs. He argued that creating parking on a green area required all owners’ consent, whereas decisions were made by majority. The association objected that parking had already been approved and the December decisions merely organised the works. The appeal court disagreed with that explanation: the April decision was too indefinite to count as a construction decision. It was the December project that specified the future parking area and tree works. This did not, however, justify granting the demand made. The owner sought a declaration of nullity, meaning no legal effect from adoption, rather than an alternative order invalidating an unlawful decision. The court considered that an alleged breach of co-owner consent rules did not itself cause nullity. The materials also did not establish a change in the plot’s intended use substantial enough to require the provision cited by the claimant. The court found no other grounds for nullity, including a proven breach of convening requirements. The court did not allow a separate challenge to the April decision to be added on appeal. Appeal costs were imposed on the claimant; the first-instance court will quantify them separately. The court applied the rules in force when the meeting decisions were adopted in 2016; its findings concern the demand made and those materials.

Outcome of this decision

Uphold the first-instance judgment of 30.08.2017. Leave the appeal concerning nullity of the meeting decision of 13.04.2016 unexamined and dismiss the rest. Claimant XX bears appeal costs, to be quantified separately.
Not prepared yet

· Case 2-17-1555 · Viru Maakohus · First instance

2-18-102661

Narva linn, Joala tn 11 korteriühistu · 80189885

Contracts and servicesWorks contracts and designPayment, advance payments and refundsApartment association bills, payments and debtsInstalments and payment schedules

Editorial summary

The association and contractor settled the dispute about returning an advance. The court approved four payments totalling 1 095,82 euros and terminated the case.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-18-102661/4Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Joala tn 11: contractor agreed to return the remaining advance in four payments

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Joala tn 11 korteriühistu · OÜ Disainteenused · 80189885 · 12513609

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — apartment association, client commissioning the works; debtor — OÜ Disainteenused, contractor; organisations’ representatives XX

Editorial summary

The association and contractor settled the dispute about returning an advance. The court approved four payments totalling 1 095,82 euros and terminated the case.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court approved an agreement between Narva linn, Joala tn 11 korteriühistu and OÜ Disainteenused for payment of 1 095,82 euros and terminated the case. The agreed sum includes 1 030,82 euros in principal, a 45 euro fee and 20 euros in procedural costs. The association alleged that the company received an advance for works but the contract was terminated early for non-performance. The parties determined the value of work done and agreed return of the unused advance. The association claimed that the company had returned only part and sought the balance. This is a claim against a contractor, rather than an owner’s apartment maintenance debt. The company initially objected to a payment order and the case was transferred to Viru Maakohus. The participants then submitted a payment schedule and requested an end to the dispute. The court found the agreement admissible and enforceable. It did not separately decide the company’s request to withdraw its earlier objection: after approval, that no longer affected the outcome. Payment was set in four parts: 273,95 euros by 25 April, May and June 2018, and 273,97 euros by 25 July 2018. The company may pay earlier; it bears its own costs. The ruling does not confirm actual performance of the schedule.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement: OÜ Disainteenused pays the association 1 095,82 euros — 273,95 euros by 25.04, 25.05 and 25.06.2018 and 273,97 euros by 25.07.2018; early payment is permitted. Leave the company’s own costs to it. Terminate the case and allocate costs under the agreement.
2-18-4960

Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 12 korteriühistu · 80170609

Apartment association meetings and decisionsQuorum and repeat meetings

Editorial summary

The fee was paid, but details of all necessary participants and other defects in the application were not corrected.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-18-4960/4Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Daumani 12: application to set aside a meeting decision refused admission because defects remained

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KORTERIÜHISTU DAUMANI 12 · 80170609

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — XX; Interested person — KORTERIÜHISTU DAUMANI 12

Editorial summary

The fee was paid, but details of all necessary participants and other defects in the application were not corrected.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court refused to admit XX’s application to set aside KORTERIÜHISTU DAUMANI 12’s general meeting decision of 1 February 2018. Assistance with court fees and temporary suspension of the meeting decision were also refused. The act did not examine the decision’s validity on the merits. XX alleged that the meeting lacked the required composition for decision-making. Its decisions included resuming court proceedings against XX. XX asked for the decision to be set aside, suspended pending the dispute, and for exemption from the fee. The ruling does not describe objections from the association. The court had earlier required defects in the claim to be remedied and explained that this question must be addressed by application in special non-contentious proceedings. The documents did not identify all affected persons. The court required a proper application and payment of 50 euros, or clarification of the assistance request. On 16 April, XX provided proof of paying 50 euros but did not remedy the other defects. The court therefore found that the application did not allow consideration with all necessary persons and refused admission. The interim protection request also remained unclarified and its separate 50 euro fee unpaid. The court refused it too. Fee assistance was not granted because, after refusal to admit the main application, no procedural action requiring a fee remained. The applicant’s own costs were left to the applicant; no sums were reimbursable to other participants. The court explained the right to request refund of the fee separately, but did not order repayment in the operative part.

Outcome of this decision

Refuse to admit the application to set aside the meeting decision. Refuse procedural assistance and interim protection. The applicant bears costs; no sums are reimbursable to other participants.
2-17-126066

Narva linn, Hariduse tn 26 korteriühistu · 80218606

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

Editorial summary

With no responses to the personally served claim, the court awarded the association debt, accrued interest and costs jointly and severally against two defendants by default.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-126066/5Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Hariduse 26: debt, interest and costs awarded against two defendants by default

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KORTERIÜHISTU HARIDUSE 26 NARVA · 80218606

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — apartment association; two defendants XX; association’s representative XX

Editorial summary

With no responses to the personally served claim, the court awarded the association debt, accrued interest and costs jointly and severally against two defendants by default.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court granted KORTERIÜHISTU HARIDUSE 26 NARVA’s claim against two defendants XX by default. The documents were served personally, but no timely responses arrived. Principal, accrued interest and court costs were awarded jointly and severally. This is a common obligation: the association may seek the unpaid awarded amount from either defendant within its limits without receiving the entire sum twice. The short act does not set out detailed circumstances of the charges or the interest calculation. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security but does not confirm actual payment.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the claim by default: award principal, accrued interest and costs against the two defendants jointly and severally. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security.
2-17-15963

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 22 korteriühistu · 80189336

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

Editorial summary

The defendant did not respond after public service of the claim; the court awarded debt, interest and the fee by default.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-15963/8Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Puškini 22: default award of debt and interest, legal costs refused

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Aleksander Puškini tn 22 korteriühistu · 80189336

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — Narva linn, Aleksander Puškini tn 22 korteriühistu; Defendant — owner XX

Editorial summary

The defendant did not respond after public service of the claim; the court awarded debt, interest and the fee by default.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court granted Narva linn, Aleksander Puškini tn 22 korteriühistu’s debt and interest claim against XX by default. The claim documents were served publicly through Ametlikud Teadaanded, with 14 days to respond and a warning of default judgment. No response arrived; the court treated the claimant’s facts as procedurally admitted. Principal and accrued interest were awarded. The court divided further interest on unpaid principal according to the periods of the rules applied: 0,07% per day from 1 October to 31 December 2017, and from 1 January 2018 until payment, the statutory annual rate of the ECB’s main refinancing operations, determined for each half-year, plus 8 percentage points. The association was awarded a 125 euro fee. Legal costs of 60 euros were refused: it acted through a statutory representative and had no contractual representative in the proceedings. The judgment is immediately enforceable but does not confirm actual payment.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the claim by default. Award further interest on unpaid principal at 0,07% per day from 1 October to 31 December 2017, and from 1 January 2018 at the statutory annual ECB rate stated in the act plus 8 percentage points. Award a 125 euro fee; refuse 60 euros in legal costs. The judgment is immediately enforceable.