Skip to decisions
Žuk — ANTON и JELENA

Narva apartment associations Court decisions

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

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

Subjects and subtopics

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

Additional parameters

Reset all
Case 2-14-20708Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 19 korteriühistu · 80054978

Damage and insuranceLeaks and floodingCause and proof of damageAmount of compensationRepairs and shared propertyRoof and attic

How it started · editorial summary

The need for repairs did not establish the cause and amount of new loss from the particular leak.

· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-14-20708/51Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Puškini tn 19: the link between damage and a roof leak was not proved

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Puškini tn 19 Korteriühistu · 80054978

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and appellant — owner XX; defendant — Puškini tn 19 Korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The need for repairs did not establish the cause and amount of new loss from the particular leak.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Puškini tn 19 Korteriühistu (now — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 19 korteriühistu). Owner XX sought compensation from Puškini tn 19 Korteriühistu for damage attributed to a roof leak. The first-instance court dismissed the claim. The appellate court upheld that decision: damage in the alleged circumstances, its amount and its causal link to the association’s conduct were not proved. Inspection records established a need for repairs, but not when or why the damage arose. Witness accounts conflicted. Earlier damage had not been shown to have been remedied; comparison of inspections did not establish deterioration caused by the alleged later leak. Nor was it proved that the water had actually come through the roof. New annotations on an earlier record did not establish those missing facts. The court separately explained that a damages claim does not pass automatically with an apartment under association-membership rules. However, the transfer agreement could be interpreted as assigning the claim. That did not remove the need to prove the loss itself. The appeal was dismissed and XX was ordered to pay the association 378 euros in appellate costs.

Outcome of this decision

The dismissal was upheld and the appeal refused; the association was awarded 378 euros in appellate costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Leave the judgment of Viru Maakohus of 3 May 2016 unchanged.
Appeal
Case 2-14-57931Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 45a korteriühistu · 80250416

Damage and insuranceDamage caused during repairsCause and proof of damageAmount of compensationRepairs and shared propertyBasement, stairwell and shared rooms

How it started · editorial summary

Tartu Ringkonnakohus set aside the judgment in favour of Täisühing Mašuk and refused to award 877,42 euros in damages against the apartment association Puškini 45A.

· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-14-57931/24Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Appeal court dismissed claim over a sunken floor: link to association’s works unproven

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Täisühing Mašuk · Puškini 45A Korteriühistu · 10444548 · 80250416

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant Täisühing Mašuk — owner of non-residential premises.; Defendant and appellant Puškini 45A Korteriühistu — challenged the award.

How it started · editorial summary

Tartu Ringkonnakohus set aside the judgment in favour of Täisühing Mašuk and refused to award 877,42 euros in damages against the apartment association Puškini 45A.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The company Mašuk linked subsidence of a corridor floor in its non-residential premises to repairs to the strip around the building commissioned by the association. It alleged that a hole had been dug during the works and filled without proper compaction. The company sought 577,42 euros to restore the floor and 300 euros in expert examination costs. The association denied causing damage and pointed to a lack of evidence. On 23 January 2015, the first-instance court awarded 577,42 euros for repairs and 300 euros for the expert examination as costs. It regarded the floor as common property for whose upkeep the association was responsible regardless of the cause of subsidence. The association appealed, challenging that conclusion and the assessment of evidence. The appeal court found that the corridor formed part of the claimant’s premises and was used only by it. The finding that it was common property was not based on circumstances pleaded and discussed. The court saw no grounds to make the association bear the maintenance costs of this part of the premises. The court also found no proven link between the subsidence and the works commissioned by the association. The expert report pointed to defects in alteration of the entrance and corridor themselves: ground compaction, reinforcement, connection to the building and insulation. There was no evidence that the floor had subsided because of the repairs to the surrounding strip. As the act causing damage was unproven, the court did not assess unlawfulness and fault separately. The appeal was allowed: the earlier judgment was set aside and the claim dismissed in full. Costs at both instances were allocated to Mašuk; the association was awarded 460 euros, including 175 euros in state fees and 285 euros in representation costs.

Outcome of this decision

Set aside the Viru Maakohus judgment of 23 January 2015, allow the association’s appeal and dismiss Mašuk’s claim for 877,42 euros. Order Mašuk to pay the association 460 euros in costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Allow the appeal.
Appeal
Case 2-13-38759Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Vahtra tn 2a korteriühistu · 80175127

Damage and insuranceInsurance payment and insurer’s claimAmount of compensation

How it started · editorial summary

The court approved a 3 500-euro agreement between Salva Kindlustuse AS and the apartment association Narva-Vahtra 2a and awarded the insurer a court fee refund of 137,50 euros.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-13-38759/74Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Insurer and association agreed payment of 3 500 euros; proceedings terminated

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Salva Kindlustuse AS · KÜ Narva-Vahtra 2a · 10284984 · 80175127

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant Salva Kindlustuse AS – insurer bringing the claim.; Defendant KÜ Narva-Vahtra 2a – obligated party under the agreement.; Third party XX – on the claimant’s side.

How it started · editorial summary

The court approved a 3 500-euro agreement between Salva Kindlustuse AS and the apartment association Narva-Vahtra 2a and awarded the insurer a court fee refund of 137,50 euros.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Salva Kindlustuse AS brought a monetary claim for 3 950 euros against the association. The ruling records 275 euros in court fees and 500 euros for an expert examination paid by the insurer. It does not disclose the detailed circumstances of the insured event or the parties’ objections. Third party XX participated on the claimant’s side. The parties agreed to reduce the claim to 3 500 euros, including the court fee. The association undertook to pay this amount from the agreement’s entry into force, with 15 April 2015 specified as the final deadline. The agreement enters into force together with the ruling approving it. Each party bears its own costs. The court found no conflict with the law or good morals, approved the agreement and terminated proceedings. After the ruling becomes final, the claimant is entitled to reimbursement of half the court fee paid, 137,50 euros. This is a refund from the state budget; it does not mean that the association has fulfilled its obligation under the agreement.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement for the apartment association Narva-Vahtra 2a to pay the insurer 3 500 euros, including the court fee, on the stated terms. Terminate proceedings. Allocate costs as agreed; refund the insurer 137,50 euros in court fees after the ruling becomes final.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Terminate proceedings in civil case No. 2-13-38759.
First instance
Case 2-14-7448Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 17 korteriühistu · 80054102

Damage and insuranceLeaks and floodingCause and proof of damageAmount of compensationInsurance payment and insurer’s claimWater and seweragePipes, risers and sewerage

How it started · editorial summary

The court granted Salva Kindlustuse AS’s claim against the apartment association DAUMANI 17, awarding 2 213,90 euros for insurance compensation paid and 200 euros in court fees.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-7448/7Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Association ordered to pay insurer 2 213,90 euros for damage from a shared riser

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Salva Kindlustuse AS · DAUMANI 17 KORTERIÜHISTU · 10284984 · 80054102

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant Salva Kindlustuse AS – paid the insurance compensation.; Defendant DAUMANI 17 KORTERIÜHISTU – found liable for the damage.; Owner XX – recipient of the insurance payment, not named as a party to the claim.

How it started · editorial summary

The court granted Salva Kindlustuse AS’s claim against the apartment association DAUMANI 17, awarding 2 213,90 euros for insurance compensation paid and 200 euros in court fees.

The dispute and the court’s decision

On 19 November 2012, a hot-water system failure damaged the interior finishes of an insured apartment. The insurer paid owner XX 2 213,90 euros and sought that sum from the association, relying on its duty to maintain the shared system. The parties did not dispute the incident or the insurance payment. The association objected that the insurer had been notified late, the repair amount needed expert assessment, the works did not match the damage, and the cause of the pipe rupture had not been proved. It considered the failure accidental and denied liability. The court linked liability to the association’s duty to keep shared building systems in working order and noted that the owner’s claim had passed to the insurer to the extent of the insurance payment. The association knew about the incident and damage, including through the certificate it had issued on 21 November 2012. The late-notification objection was rejected: the cited provision allowed the insurer to reduce or refuse payment, but did not require refusal. The law did not require damage to be assessed exclusively by an expert opinion. The association had not specified which works it disputed or on what grounds. The court placed on it the burden of proving circumstances that could exclude liability for the system’s condition. The claim was granted in full. In addition to 2 213,90 euros, the court awarded 200 euros in court fees and imposed all costs on the association. This is an award to the insurer; the judgment does not establish actual payment.

Outcome of this decision

Order the apartment association DAUMANI 17 to pay Salva Kindlustuse AS 2 213,90 euros to reimburse the insurance payment and 200 euros in court fees. All costs are borne by the defendant.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. The defendant shall bear all litigation costs.
First instance
Case 2-12-4033Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu · 80189721

Damage and insuranceInsurance payment and insurer’s claimAmount of compensation

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer’s case against the association, reopened after a default award, ended in an agreement for lower compensation and repayment of funds previously received.

· Ruling approving a settlementViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-12-4033/47Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Puškini 12 and Swedbank P&C Insurance AS: settlement after enforcement of a default judgment and reopening of proceedings

Ruling approving a settlement · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Swedbank P&C Insurance AS · KÜ Puškini 12 · 11269248 · 80189721

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — Swedbank P&C Insurance AS; defendant — KÜ Puškini 12; claimant’s representative XX; defendant’s representative XX; bailiff XX — earlier enforcement

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer’s case against the association, reopened after a default award, ended in an agreement for lower compensation and repayment of funds previously received.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Swedbank P&C Insurance AS sought compensation for property damage from the apartment association Puškini 12. According to the history set out in the ruling, a default judgment in February 2012 awarded 3 291,33 euros in damages and 543,24 euros in state fees. It was enforceable immediately; the circuit court later reopened the proceedings by a ruling. After reopening, the parties chose to settle the dispute. Under the agreement, the association acknowledged damage of only 700 euros and assumed 125 euros in state fee costs. The insurer undertook to return 2 466,33 euros of the funds received from the association within ten days after the ruling approving the settlement entered into force. This is a separate repayment obligation under the agreement, rather than a new amount of damages. The parties confirmed that they had no further claims within the settlement and agreed to bear their own remaining costs. They waived further appeals. The court found that the settlement reflected the participants’ wishes and interests, approved it and terminated the proceedings by its ruling of 6 March 2013. It separately ordered the state to refund the insurer 271,62 euros, half the state fee originally paid. The initial default award and the final settlement terms have different meanings: the final agreed compensation is not 3 291,33 euros. The act does not establish the full actual amount of damage following an adversarial determination of every argument. The copy is marked as entering into force on the day it was made; this does not confirm actual repayment or subsequent performance.

Outcome of this decision

Terminate the proceedings and approve the association’s acknowledgement of 700 euros in damage and 125 euros in state fee costs. The insurer is to return 2 466,33 euros to the association within ten days after the ruling enters into force. The parties bear their remaining costs; refund the insurer 271,62 euros, half the state fee. The participants waived appeals.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Terminate the proceedings on Swedbank P&C Insurance AS’s claim against KÜ Puškini 12 for damages following approval of the settlement. […] The participants shall bear their own procedural costs in this civil case. […] The parties waive the right to appeal against the ruling.
First instance
Case 2-10-62881Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 11 korteriühistu · 80170839

Repairs and shared propertyRoof and atticContracts and servicesWorks contracts and designQuality and acceptance of worksPayment, advance payments and refundsDamage and insuranceDamage caused during repairsCause and proof of damageAmount of compensation

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought compensation for defective roof repairs; the contractor relied on having followed the agreed design. After an expert examination was ordered, the parties agreed on a smaller amount and instalments.

· Order approving a settlementViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-10-62881/47Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Puškini 11 and OÜ Lonstrong: settlement approved over damage following roof repairs

Order approving a settlement · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Puškini 11 · OÜ Lonstrong · 80170839 · 10632379

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant – KÜ Puškini 11; defendant – OÜ Lonstrong; parties’ legal and contractual representatives XX; expert XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought compensation for defective roof repairs; the contractor relied on having followed the agreed design. After an expert examination was ordered, the parties agreed on a smaller amount and instalments.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Puškini 11 brought a claim for 55 453,72 euros against OÜ Lonstrong following roof repairs. It relied on defects in the roofing and the damage they caused. The contractor initially disputed the claim, saying that the works followed the customer’s design documents, specifications and supervision instructions. During the proceedings, the parties raised the issue of an expert examination. The source records the contractor’s advance payment for it and receipt of an expert report. The order does not disclose the expert’s conclusions. The parties then agreed a settlement at the hearing instead of pursuing a decision on the merits. The defendant acknowledged the claim to the agreed extent and undertook to pay 31 955,82 euros. Of this, 19 955,82 euros was due by 15 November 2012, with the remaining 12 000 euros payable in twelve monthly instalments of 1 000 euros from December 2012 to November 2013. The association waived its remaining claims. The agreement resolved all disputes arising from the works contract of 9 April 2007. The court found no obstacle to approval, confirmed the agreed terms and terminated proceedings by its order of 12 October 2012. Each party bears its own costs; half the court fee, 2 236,91 euros, is to be returned to the association. The parties waived an appeal. This was an agreed resolution, rather than an independent judicial determination of the full amount of damage. The court did, however, examine the documentary evidence collected.

Outcome of this decision

Terminate proceedings and approve the settlement: OÜ Lonstrong is to pay the association 31 955,82 euros on the agreed schedule, and the association waives the remainder of its claims. All disputes under the contract of 09.04.2007 are resolved; each party bears its own costs. Reimburse the association 2 236,91 euros in court fees. The parties waived an appeal.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Terminate proceedings on the claim by KÜ Puškini 11 against OÜ Lonstrong for damages of 55 453.72 euros. […] 31 955 (thirty-one thousand nine hundred and fifty-five) euros and 82 cents. The claimant waives the remaining claims. […] 5. The parties waive the right to appeal the court ruling.
First instance