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
2-16-9388

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 21 korteriühistu · 80228958

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

Editorial summary

The association challenged only the failure to reimburse a 75-euro fee; the court applied the monetary threshold for a costs appeal.

· RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-16-9388/12Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 21: appeal over 75 euros in litigation costs not accepted for proceedings

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Korteriühistu Tallinna mnt 21 Narva · 800228928

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and appellant – Korteriühistu Tallinna mnt 21 Narva; Defendant XX; Association representatives XX

Editorial summary

The association challenged only the failure to reimburse a 75-euro fee; the court applied the monetary threshold for a costs appeal.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Tartu Ringkonnakohus refused to accept the appeal by the apartment association Tallinna mnt 21 Narva against the costs part of a default judgment. The association challenged the failure to reimburse 75 euros in court fees paid. The principal debt was not reviewed in this appeal. The association argued that the county court had incorrectly stated that there were no costs to quantify even though the fee had been paid. It asked for those 75 euros to be awarded against defendant XX. The circuit court explained that the monetary amount of costs may be appealed where the disputed amount exceeds 200 euros. This limitation also applies when costs are quantified in the judgment resolving the case, including a default judgment. The disputed 75 euros did not exceed that threshold, so the appeal was not accepted and was deemed returned. The 50-euro appeal fee had also not been paid. However, the court did not allow time to pay it because the appeal could not in any event be accepted on the stated ground. It separately explained that the costs of challenging the quantification of costs are not reimbursable even if the challenge succeeds. This ruling makes no new award of 75 euros.

Outcome of this decision

Refuse to accept the association’s appeal on costs; the appeal is deemed returned. No new reimbursement of 75 euros is awarded.
2-16-120289

Narva linn, Uusküla tn 5 korteriühistu · 80038301

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

Editorial summary

The association reported full payment before the claim was accepted; the court refused acceptance because judicial protection was no longer needed.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-120289/4Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Uusküla 5: court did not accept the claim for proceedings after a report of payment

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Uusküla 5 · 80038301

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – KÜ Uusküla 5; Person named as debtor XX; Association’s legal representative XX

Editorial summary

The association reported full payment before the claim was accepted; the court refused acceptance because judicial protection was no longer needed.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court refused to accept for proceedings the debt claim by the apartment association Uusküla 5 against XX. Before ordinary civil proceedings began, the association reported full payment of the debt and asked to conclude the case. The court found that the need for judicial protection had ceased. The association had initially applied for a payment order. Following the debtor’s objection, the claim was transferred to Viru Maakohus. That court required a properly formatted claim and payment of an additional court fee within 14 days. Before the claim was accepted, however, the association stated that it no longer wished to begin the hearing process because the debt had been repaid. The result was therefore recorded as refusal to accept the claim for proceedings, rather than termination of already accepted ordinary civil proceedings. The court explained that, following such refusal, the returned application is deemed never to have been filed and the claim never pending before the court. Costs were left with the association; the ruling did not quantify them. It makes no new debt award.

Outcome of this decision

Refuse to accept the association’s claim against XX for proceedings. The association bears costs; no new monetary award is made.
2-16-13519

Narva linn, Joala tn 5 korteriühistu · 80158985

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

Editorial summary

After personal service of the claim, the defendant did not respond; the court awarded debt, interest and part of the costs claimed by default.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-13519/5Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Joala 5: debt and interest awarded by default, claim drafting costs refused

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Joala 5 · 80158985

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — KÜ Joala 5; Defendant — owner XX; Association’s statutory representative XX

Editorial summary

After personal service of the claim, the defendant did not respond; the court awarded debt, interest and part of the costs claimed by default.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court granted the apartment association Joala 5’s claim against owner XX by default for debt, accrued late-payment interest and further interest until the principal obligation was fulfilled. After personal service of the documents, the defendant did not respond within the 14 days allowed. The association had requested a default judgment in advance if no response was submitted. The court found the claim legally justified and applied the rules under which the claimant’s factual assertions are treated as admitted by the defendant in a default procedure. This is not an adversarial examination of objections that the defendant did not submit. Of the costs, a 175 euro state fee was awarded. Reimbursement of 60 euros for drafting the claim was refused: the claim was signed by the association’s statutory representative and there was no contractual representative in the case. The judgment is immediately enforceable; it does not confirm actual payment.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the debt and interest claim by default. Award the 175 euro state fee; refuse 60 euros in claim drafting costs because no contractual representative participated in the proceedings. The judgment is immediately enforceable.
2-15-105517

Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 10 korteriühistu · 80183397

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayBills and justification of chargesPayment accounting and set-offLimitation of claimsObligations of multiple owners

Editorial summary

The court examined limitation and the association’s calculations and dismissed the claim: the older part was time-barred, and the tables did not show debt for the rest.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-105517/55Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Võidu 10: claim dismissed because older demands were time-barred and calculations showed no debt

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Võidu 10 · 80183397

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — KÜ Võidu 10; Two defendants XX; Participants’ representatives XX

Editorial summary

The court examined limitation and the association’s calculations and dismissed the claim: the older part was time-barred, and the tables did not show debt for the rest.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court dismissed the apartment association Võidu 10’s debt and late-payment interest claim against two defendants XX. Limitation was applied to the older part of the claims; for the later period, the court found no debt on the dates examined according to the association’s tables. The association revised its calculation several times. One defendant argued that the principal had been paid, some claims were brought after limitation had expired, and payments exceeded charges during the remaining period. The second submitted no substantive response. The association submitted tables, but not the invoices themselves or information allowing the court to establish who made particular payments and when. The court found that claims for 1 May 2009 to 31 December 2011 had become time-barred before the application was filed in March 2015. The corresponding interest claims became time-barred together with the principal claim. For the later charges, the court examined payments and concluded that the association’s tables showed no debt either on 31 May 2015 or on 30 June 2016. Interest on this part was also found unjustified. The court stated that performance of a joint and several obligation by one debtor releases the others to the corresponding extent. No refund of an alleged overpayment was awarded to the defendants. The association was left to bear its own costs and ordered to bear the defendants’ costs. It was ordered to pay the state 348,24 euros for state legal aid within three months after the judgment entered into force. Actual payment of costs is not confirmed.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss the association’s claim against the two defendants XX. The association bears the costs; award the state 348,24 euros for legal aid, payable within three months after the judgment enters into force. No refund of overpayment to the defendants was ordered.
2-16-107757

Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 4 korteriühistu · 80228651

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

Editorial summary

The short judgment grants the association’s claim and retains security for the claim. The court explained the ten-day procedure for notifying an intention to appeal so that a factual description and reasons can be added.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-107757/27Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Daumani 4: debt and interest awarded, interim protection of the claim retained

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Korteriühistu Daumani 4 · 80228651

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — Korteriühistu Daumani 4; Defendant XX; Parties’ representatives XX

Editorial summary

The short judgment grants the association’s claim and retains security for the claim. The court explained the ten-day procedure for notifying an intention to appeal so that a factual description and reasons can be added.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court granted the apartment association Daumani 4’s claim against XX for debt and late-payment interest. In addition to principal and accrued interest, it awarded further interest of 0,07% per day on unpaid principal until payment in full. The defendant was ordered to bear court costs; the state fee and contractual representation costs found necessary and justified were awarded. Previously imposed measures securing the claim were left unchanged. This act does not disclose their content. The preserved text contains the operative part and appeal procedure without a detailed account of arguments, evidence or reasons. The case was heard under the simplified procedure. The court did not grant permission to appeal and stated that admission of an appeal was possible on the grounds specified in the act of an obvious material error of law, procedure or assessment of evidence. A participant intending to appeal must notify the county court within 10 days of service of the operative part. The judgment is then supplemented with a factual description and reasons, and the 30-day appeal period runs from service of the supplemented full text. This is the procedure explained by the court; supplementation, further review and payment of the awarded sums have not been established.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the association’s claim against XX: award principal, accrued late-payment interest, further interest of 0,07% per day until payment of principal, and court costs. Retain the measures securing the claim. A ten-day deadline is stated for notifying the court of an intention to appeal to obtain a supplemented judgment.
2-16-114467

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 17 korteriühistu · 80070061

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

Editorial summary

The defendant did not respond after service of the documents; the court awarded debt, interest and part of the association’s costs by default.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-114467/5Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kangelaste 17: default award of debt with interest and part of the costs

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Kangelaste 17 · 80070061

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — KÜ Kangelaste 17; Defendant XX; Association’s statutory representative XX

Editorial summary

The defendant did not respond after service of the documents; the court awarded debt, interest and part of the association’s costs by default.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court granted the apartment association Kangelaste 17’s claim against XX for debt and late-payment interest by default and awarded part of the court costs. The documents were served through a person living with the defendant; no written response was received within the 14 days allowed. The court accepted a 200 euro state fee and 0,32 euros in bank charges, a total of 200,32 euros. Reimbursement of 130 euros for legal assistance was refused: documents were submitted by the association’s statutory representative and there was no contractual representative in the proceedings. A further 20 euros in payment order costs was not awarded because the court did not find that such costs had been incurred. The judgment is immediately enforceable. The award of debt and costs does not confirm actual payment.

Outcome of this decision

The debt and interest claim was granted by default. Costs of 200,32 euros were awarded; the additional 130 euros for legal assistance and 20 euros in costs were refused. The judgment is immediately enforceable.
2-16-11537

Narva linn, Uusküla tn 1 korteriühistu · 80175825

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsInstalments and payment schedules

Editorial summary

The defendant admitted the claim and requested instalments; the court granted the demands and set monthly payments.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-11537/7Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Uusküla 1: court granted an admitted claim and allowed payments of 400 euros per month

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Uusküla tn 1 KÜ · 80175825

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – Uusküla tn 1 KÜ; Defendant – owner XX; Association’s contractual representative XX

Editorial summary

The defendant admitted the claim and requested instalments; the court granted the demands and set monthly payments.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court granted the apartment association Uusküla tn 1’s claim against owner XX on the basis of admission. In a written response, the defendant admitted the demands and asked for monthly payments; the court granted the request and set the arrangements for performing the judgment. Litigation costs were also awarded against the defendant. The court noted that immediate admission of a claim does not in itself remove liability for costs: in this case, the defendant’s conduct had given reason to go to court. The defendant raised no objections to the costs. This is a judgment based on admission with court-ordered instalments, rather than a default judgment or approval of a settlement. It is immediately enforceable without security. Admission and the payment schedule do not establish actual payment of the debt or costs.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the association’s claim against XX on the basis of admission; order monthly payments until full payment and award litigation costs. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security.
2-16-11476

Narva linn, Uusküla tn 1 korteriühistu · 80175825

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

Editorial summary

The defendant did not respond after personal service of the claim; the court awarded the debt, late-payment interest and costs by default.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-11476/6Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Uusküla 1: debt and late-payment interest awarded by default; association granted refund of excess court fee

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Korteriühistu Uusküla tn 1 · 80175825

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – Korteriühistu Uusküla tn 1; Defendant XX; Association’s contractual representative XX

Editorial summary

The defendant did not respond after personal service of the claim; the court awarded the debt, late-payment interest and costs by default.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court granted the apartment association Uusküla tn 1’s claim against XX for arrears and late-payment interest by default and also awarded litigation costs. The claim had been served personally on the defendant against signature, but no response arrived within the time limit. The brief judgment does not give a detailed debt history, charging period or objections from the defendant. The judgment is immediately enforceable. Separately, the court ordered a refund to the association of 25 euros in overpaid court fees from the state budget. This is repayment of an excess fee to the association, rather than an additional award against the defendant. The judgment does not confirm actual payment of the awarded sums or completion of the refund.

Outcome of this decision

Award the association the debt, late-payment interest and litigation costs against XX. Order a refund to the association of 25 euros in excess court fees from the state budget. The judgment is immediately enforceable.
2-15-126339

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 24 korteriühistu · 80180571

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

Editorial summary

The association waived its claim after reporting payment by the new owner; the court terminated the case and left costs with the association.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-126339/23Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kangelaste 24: case ended after payment by a new owner; costs left with the association

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KORTERIÜHISTU KANGELASTE 24 · 80180571

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – KORTERIÜHISTU KANGELASTE 24; Two defendants XX; Association representative XX; Mentioned payer – the new owner

Editorial summary

The association waived its claim after reporting payment by the new owner; the court terminated the case and left costs with the association.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court accepted the apartment association KANGELASTE 24’s waiver of its claim against two defendants XX and terminated proceedings. The association reported that its demands had been met by the apartment’s new owner, who was not a defendant in this claim. The claim concerned arrears and late-payment interest. The ruling gives no amounts. The claim documents could not be served on the defendants, so the court did not ask for their views on the waiver. It found the waiver permissible and ended the case without a decision on the merits. It explained that the same claim against the same defendants on the same grounds could not be brought again. Costs were left with the association. The court specifically noted that the demands had been met by the new owner, rather than the defendants, so the costs exception for payment by a defendant after filing did not apply. The court identified no costs reimbursable to other participants. The association requested a court fee refund. The court left this for a separate ruling after the present ruling becomes final. No refund was ordered by this ruling itself.

Outcome of this decision

Accept the waiver and terminate proceedings. The association bears costs; no sums are reimbursable to participants. The court fee refund question is to be decided separately after the ruling becomes final.
2-16-10336

Narva linn, Kosmonaudi tn 9, Linda tn 7 korteriühistu · 80180884

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

Editorial summary

The settlement sets instalments and default consequences but does not prove later payment.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-10336/6Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Debt instalments under an approved settlement

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KORTERIÜHISTU NARVA UNISTUS · 80180884

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Association — claimant and settling party; XX — defendant and settling party

Editorial summary

The settlement sets instalments and default consequences but does not prove later payment.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KORTERIÜHISTU NARVA UNISTUS (now — Narva linn, Kosmonaudi tn 9, Linda tn 7 korteriühistu). KORTERIÜHISTU NARVA UNISTUS and XX agreed to settle a debt claim. Following a partial payment, XX acknowledged the remaining debt and the agreed share of costs. The settlement provides for three instalments; a delay of even one day on any instalment makes the whole balance immediately due and triggers daily late-payment interest of 0.07% on the unpaid part. The source does not disclose the substantive basis of the original claim.

Outcome of this decision

The court approved the settlement and terminated the proceedings. Costs follow the agreement; each party bears its costs not covered by it. The court reserved the refund issue for a separate order after this order becomes final.
2-16-10334

Narva linn, Soldina tn 2 korteriühistu · 80180921

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

Editorial summary

The court refused to accept the claim for proceedings because the person named as defendant had died; the debt was not examined on its merits.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-10334/2Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Tiimani 2: debt claim against a deceased person refused

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Tiimani 2 · 80180921

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant – KÜ Tiimani 2; Person named as defendant – XX

Editorial summary

The court refused to accept the claim for proceedings because the person named as defendant had died; the debt was not examined on its merits.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Tiimani 2 brought a debt claim against XX. After checking the population register, the court established that the person named as defendant had died and could not participate in civil proceedings. The court refused to accept the claim for proceedings; the application and attachments are to be returned to the association. The court explained that a deceased person lacks legal capacity: the ability to have rights and obligations as a participant in proceedings. Hearing the claim against that person therefore could not produce the requested result. The existence and amount of the utility debt were not assessed on their merits. The ruling explained that a claim arising from the owner’s obligations may be directed against the heirs. If the heirs are unknown, an interested person may, under the prescribed conditions, request measures to preserve the estate, including appointment of an administrator to safeguard the assets. In this case, no heirs were identified, no administrator was appointed and no award was made against them. Costs were left with the association. An application returned following refusal to accept it is deemed never to have been filed or pending as a civil claim.

Outcome of this decision

Refuse to accept the association’s claim for proceedings. Return the application and attachments to the claimant; the association bears costs.
2-15-3203

Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 38a korteriühistu · 80175953

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsObligations of multiple owners

Latest prepared act · · № 2-15-3203/43

Editorial summary

A second judgment on joint and several liability does not double the common debt.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 2
· JudgmentViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-15-3203/43Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Default judgment against another jointly and severally liable debtor

Judgment · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

KÜ Kreenholmi 38A · 80175953

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Association — claimant; XX — defendant subject to this default judgment; XX — another jointly and severally liable debtor under the earlier judgment

Editorial summary

A second judgment on joint and several liability does not double the common debt.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Kreenholmi 38A (now — Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 38a korteriühistu). KÜ Kreenholmi 38A claimed apartment and utility charges against several co-owners XX. The debt had already been awarded against one of them. This judgment concerns another defendant XX who received the claim personally but did not respond. The court found the claim legally justified and emphasised joint and several liability: the earlier award does not create a separate additional debt.

Outcome of this decision

The claim against this defendant was granted by default. The debt and fee reimbursement are joint and several with the earlier awards. The cost of a legal service for preparing the claim was refused. The judgment is immediately enforceable, but payment is not established.
· JudgmentViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-15-3203/23Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Default judgment awarding a debt against one defendant

Judgment · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

KÜ Kreenholmi 38A · 80175953

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Association — claimant; XX — defendant against whom the debt was awarded; XX — other defendants not covered by this operative part

Editorial summary

The short operative part concerns one defendant. A preserved subsequent judgment in the same case identifies the co-owners’ apartment and utility charges and imposes the same obligation jointly and severally on another defendant.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Kreenholmi 38A (now — Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 38a korteriühistu). KÜ Kreenholmi 38A brought a debt claim against several defendants XX. This judgment grants it against only one of them. It gives no description or legal reasons for the principal claim, expressly relying on the possibility of issuing a default judgment without those parts. The preserved subsequent judgment in the same case, dated 5 July 2016, clarifies that the dispute concerned co-owners’ apartment and utility charges for 2012 through January 2015. The same obligation was later imposed jointly and severally on another defendant, without doubling the debt or state fee. These judgments do not establish payment.

Outcome of this decision

The debt and fee were awarded against one defendant XX. A separate legal service for preparing the claim was not reimbursed because the court did not treat it as a cost of contractual representation in the proceedings. The judgment is immediately enforceable; it does not establish payment. The judgment of 5 July 2016 imposed the same debt and state-fee obligation jointly and severally on another defendant; it is not a second independent award of the same sum.