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 2-15-13634Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Linda tn 1 korteriühistu · 80180424

Damage and insuranceLeaks and floodingInsurance payment and insurer’s claimCause and proof of damageAmount of compensationHeatingRadiators, risers and the shared heating systemChanges to or disconnection from heatingAccess for inspection and repair

How it started · editorial summary

The dismissal judgment was set aside; the association is liable for part of the damage, while the owner’s contribution to its occurrence reduced compensation.

· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-15-13634/27Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Linda 1: association ordered to reimburse insurer for part of the damage from a heating leak

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

If P&C Insurance AS · KÜ Linda 1 · OÜ Roburink · 10100168 · 80180424 ·

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and appellant – If P&C Insurance AS; Defendant – KÜ Linda 1; Policyholder and owner of the damaged premises – OÜ Roburink

How it started · editorial summary

The dismissal judgment was set aside; the association is liable for part of the damage, while the owner’s contribution to its occurrence reduced compensation.

The dispute and the court’s decision

If P&C Insurance AS paid OÜ Roburink 16 292,44 euros for damage to the interior finishes of non-residential premises following a radiator leak on 22 August 2013 and sought reimbursement from the apartment association Linda 1. The county court dismissed the claim, but the circuit court set aside the judgment and granted the claim in part. The appeal court found a valid insurance contract and transfer of the claim to the insurer proved. Central heating radiators are shared property. Having taken over management of the entire system on 6 June 2013, the association had to inspect its condition and ensure access to valves in an emergency. Reliance on the summer season and the recent takeover of management did not remove those duties. The court linked their breach to the damage. The court accepted the restoration works calculation: the association proved earlier flooding, but not that its consequences were included in the submitted estimate. However, OÜ Roburink had altered the heating with deviations from the design, had not ensured the necessary supervision and cooperation with the association, and access to the valves was absent. The court therefore reduced compensation by 70%. The association was ordered to pay 4888 euros* in damages and 1065,35 euros in accrued late-payment interest. From 3 June 2017, interest accrues at the statutory rate until payment of the 4888 euros*; all late-payment interest awarded together is capped at 4888 euros*. Costs at both levels are borne 70% by the insurer and 30% by the association; the county court will quantify them after the judgment becomes final. The court applied the legislation in force when the damage arose. Use of this judgment in a new dispute requires attention to later legislative changes and the circumstances of that case.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the claim and appeal in part: award 4888 euros* in damages, 1065,35 euros in late-payment interest, and further statutory late-payment interest on 4888 euros* from 3 June 2017 until performance against the association. Total late-payment interest is capped at 4888 euros*. Costs are borne 70% by the insurer and 30% by the association; monetary amounts are determined separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. Allow the appeal in part.
Appeal
Case 2-15-16043Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kraavi tn 12 korteriühistu · 80310766

Damage and insuranceLeaks and floodingDamage caused during repairsCause and proof of damageRepairs and shared propertyRoof and attic

How it started · editorial summary

The appeal was dismissed: the claimant had not proved damage, and the court rejected the arguments about procedural breaches.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-16043/43Read act

Separate act page

Damages claimed for an alleged leak after roof repairs

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ KRAAVI 12 · 80310766

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: XX — claimant, owner; Association — defendant

How it started · editorial summary

The alleged damage after repairs was not found proven.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ KRAAVI 12 (now — Narva linn, Kraavi tn 12 korteriühistu). XX sought compensation from KÜ KRAAVI 12 for damage to interior finishes allegedly caused by roof repairs. The association disputed the leak and the loss claimed. The court disregarded Russian-language documents lacking the translation it had requested, could not establish where or when the photographs were taken, and considered testimony from witnesses who saw no flood damage. Its concluding reasons find the damage unproven.

Outcome of this decision

The operative part dismisses the claim in full. The concluding reasons find no proof of damage and therefore do not examine the other conditions of liability. The claimant bears the association’s costs, to be quantified separately.

A checked extract in this language is not yet available.

First instance
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-15-16043/63Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Kraavi 12: dismissal of damage claim following roof repairs upheld

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ Kraavi 12 · 80310766

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and appellant – XX; Defendant – KÜ Kraavi 12

How it started · editorial summary

The appeal was dismissed: the claimant had not proved damage, and the court rejected the arguments about procedural breaches.

The dispute and the court’s decision

XX sought 4500 euros in compensation and late-payment interest from the apartment association Kraavi 12, alleging that repairs to the roof, eaves and gutters in 2014 had damaged the apartment. The association denied flooding and damage. The county court dismissed the claim, and the circuit court left the judgment unchanged. The main reason for dismissal was failure to prove the damage itself in the circumstances alleged. Two witnesses examined denied the presence of flooding traces. Some Russian-language documents were disregarded: the court required an Estonian translation, set a deadline and explained the need for translation again, but the claimant did not provide one. The appeal court rejected the procedural objections. The claimant could have made a separate request to examine the necessary witness and objected to its refusal but did not do so. The claimant also did not ask for new facts and evidence to be admitted on appeal in the prescribed way. The court found the allocation of the burden of proof correct. As damage was unproved, the other conditions for the association’s liability were not examined separately.

Outcome of this decision

Leave the judgment of 15 July 2016 unchanged and dismiss the appeal. Damage in the alleged circumstances was not proved; other conditions for the association’s liability were not examined separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Dismiss the appeal.
Appeal
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 2-13-60402Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Energia tn 2a korteriühistu

Damage and insuranceCause and proof of damage

How it started · editorial summary

Tartu Ringkonnakohus refused to accept for proceedings OÜ IKB’s appeal in its dispute with the apartment association Narva Lootus and returned the appeal to the company.

· RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-13-60402/61Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Company’s appeal against an association not accepted for proceedings for non-payment of a 100 euro fee

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

OÜ IKB · KÜ Narva Lootus · ·

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: OÜ IKB — claimant and appellant.; Apartment association Narva Lootus — defendant in the compensation dispute.

How it started · editorial summary

Tartu Ringkonnakohus refused to accept for proceedings OÜ IKB’s appeal in its dispute with the apartment association Narva Lootus and returned the appeal to the company.

The dispute and the court’s decision

OÜ IKB appealed against the Viru Maakohus judgment of 16 February 2015 in a monetary compensation dispute with the apartment association Narva Lootus. The appeal was filed on 16 March. By a ruling of 13 April, the appeal court required a deficiency in the appeal to be remedied and allowed 15 days after receipt of the ruling to pay a 100 euro state fee. The company’s representative received the ruling that same day. The fee was not paid within the deadline. The court refused to accept for proceedings the appeal and returned it to IKB. This is a procedural outcome caused by an unremedied deficiency in the appeal. The compensation claim and the substantive correctness of the first-instance judgment were not examined in this ruling.

Outcome of this decision

Refuse to accept for proceedings OÜ IKB’s appeal against the judgment of 16 February 2015 and return the appeal to the applicant.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Refuse to accept OÜ IKB’s appeal […] for proceedings and return the appeal to OÜ IKB.
Appeal
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 2-10-62881Source: 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