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

Apartment association / building

Year of actCourt level

Reset all

Case 2-19-9699Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Rakvere tn 20, Rakvere tn 20a, Rakvere tn 20b, Rakvere tn 20c korteriühistu · 80180335

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeBudget, management plan and ratesDocuments and informationReporting and review of expenditureInspection and copies of documents

How it started · editorial summary

The court distinguished breach of the duty to send documents from a material breach making meeting decisions void.

Related prepared acts from this case are also shown.

20.03.2020 · Court orderViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-19-9699/34Read act

Separate act page

Meeting documents by email: a breach without nullity of the resolutions

Court order · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Rakvere tn 20, Rakvere tn 20a, Rakvere tn 20b, Rakvere tn 20c korteriühistu · 80180335

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — XX; Person concerned — Narva linn, Rakvere tn 20, Rakvere tn 20a, Rakvere tn 20b, Rakvere tn 20c korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

XX challenged resolutions because documents were not emailed. The court recognised the duty to send them but found no material obstruction to preparation or participation and refused the application.

The dispute and the court’s decision

XX sought a declaration that four resolutions of Narva linn, Rakvere tn 20, Rakvere tn 20a, Rakvere tn 20b, Rakvere tn 20c korteriühistu made on 29.04.2019 were void: those on the report, repairs, management plan and reserve capital. The complaint was that notice and documents had not been sent to the email address notified to the association. The association relied on noticeboards and its lack of a computer. The court found that XX had previously supplied an address. Notification before the new law entered into force did not remove the duty to use known contact details. The absence of a computer was not an excuse. It separately examined whether the breach materially affected participation in decision-making. In this case, documents were on noticeboards, XX knew about the meeting, could inspect drafts and acknowledged attending. Objection to taking the decisions at the meeting was not proved. The court therefore found no ground of nullity and refused the application. It did not examine the substantive legality of each resolution as a separate invalidation claim. Costs were imposed on XX, with their amount to be determined separately.

Outcome of this decision

The request to declare the 29.04.2019 resolutions void was refused. The court found a breach of the electronic-delivery duty but did not consider it sufficiently material on these facts to cause nullity. XX bears costs, with their amount determined separately.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

Order the applicant to bear the procedural costs.

18.05.2020 · RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-19-9699/41Read actAppeal18.05.2020

Separate act page

Rakvere 20–20c: failure to email documents did not make meeting decisions void

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, Rakvere tn 20, Rakvere tn 20a, Rakvere tn 20b, Rakvere tn 20c korteriühistu · 80180335

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant and appellant — XX; Respondent — Narva linn, Rakvere tn 20, Rakvere tn 20a, Rakvere tn 20b, Rakvere tn 20c korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The court distinguished breach of the duty to send documents from a material breach making meeting decisions void.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The circuit court dismissed XX’s appeal and upheld refusal to declare the meeting decisions void, meaning without effect from adoption. Applicant XX sought nullity of the general meeting decisions of 29 April 2019 of Narva linn, Rakvere tn 20, Rakvere tn 20a, Rakvere tn 20b, Rakvere tn 20c korteriühistu. The dispute concerned the annual report, repairs, management plan and reserve capital. The applicant alleged defective convening: notice and materials had not been sent to the email address previously supplied. The association replied that documents were available on noticeboards. The county court rejected the application. Tartu Ringkonnakohus examined the appeal on its merits and upheld that result. It confirmed that the association had to send notice and materials to the supplied address and had breached that duty. However, nullity follows from a material breach of convening rules, not every departure. Here the applicant knew of the meeting, the notice stated where and how to inspect materials, and the same documents had been on noticeboards in advance. The court found a real opportunity to examine and understand them without additional expense. Non-receipt by email therefore did not materially restrict rights. The circuit court separately clarified that attendance and voting alone do not cure a material breach or automatically approve the decisions. It dismissed the appeal and allocated appeal costs to the applicant; the county court will determine the amount after the final act enters into force.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss XX’s appeal and uphold the county court ruling of 20 March 2020. The applicant bears appeal costs, with the amount set separately.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

2. Uphold the Viru Maakohus ruling of 20 March 2020.

Case 2-17-19501Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 42 korteriühistu · 80175430

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsPayment accounting and set-offLate-payment interest and consequences of delayApartment association meetings and decisionsQuorum and repeat meetingsBills and justification of chargesBudget, management plan and rates

How it started · editorial summary

The circuit court examined special appeal admission conditions in a case involving a small claim.

Related prepared acts from this case are also shown.

26.02.2019 · JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-19501/82Read act

Separate act page

Association debt: crediting payments and interest across different periods

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 42 korteriühistu · 80175430

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 42 korteriühistu; Defendant — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought debt and late-payment interest. XX challenged the calculation, payment allocation and tariff resolutions. The court found the calculation proved and granted the claim.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 42 korteriühistu, formerly KÜ KANGELASTE 42, sought management and utility debt with late-payment interest from XX. XX accepted a general duty to contribute but disputed the amount, citing missing emailed invoices, unclear tariffs, defects in repeat meetings and incorrect crediting of payments. The court compared invoices, the consolidated calculation and payment records. The association agreed to apply payments to principal for the months specified by XX, and the court found this reflected in the final calculation. Objections to tariff resolutions did not establish nullity or timely challenge; the court treated the resolutions as valid. Accrued late-payment interest was checked separately for periods before and after the 2018 legislative change and found substantiated. The claim was granted: principal, accrued late-payment interest and continuing late-payment interest on unpaid principal from 1 January 2019 at the ECB rate determined for each half-year plus 8 percent annually were awarded until principal is paid. Costs were imposed on XX, with their amount to be determined separately. Actual payment of the award was not established.

Outcome of this decision

The claim was granted: the association was awarded principal, accrued late-payment interest and continuing late-payment interest on unpaid principal from 1 January 2019 at the ECB rate determined for each half-year plus 8 percent annually until principal is paid. XX bears their own and the association’s costs, the latter to be fixed separately.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

Grant the claim.

20.05.2019 · RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-17-19501/86Read actAppeal20.05.2019

Separate act page

Kangelaste 42: appeal refused admission in a simplified case

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Korteriühistu Kangelaste 42 · 80175430

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — Korteriühistu Kangelaste 42; Defendant and appellant — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The circuit court examined special appeal admission conditions in a case involving a small claim.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The circuit court refused to admit XX’s appeal in the apartment association Kangelaste 42’s simplified case, finding no grounds for admission. Korteriühistu Kangelaste 42 had obtained an award of management cost debt and accrued late-payment interest against defendant XX in the county court. Further statutory late-payment interest on principal was also awarded and costs allocated to the defendant. XX appealed, alleging breaches of legal rules, and requested state legal aid. Tartu Ringkonnakohus was deciding whether to admit the appeal. The case concerned a small monetary claim under the simplified procedure, subject to special appeal conditions. The court checked for an obvious misapplication of law, material procedural breaches or clearly incorrect assessment of evidence capable of affecting the outcome. The circuit court found none. It considered that the county court had examined charges, facts and evidence in detail and applied the relevant rules. The defendant’s disagreement with the outcome alone did not suffice for admission. The court refused to admit the appeal and deemed it returned to the applicant. This is an appeal admission ruling, not a new award of the same sums. The legal aid application was left undecided. The unpaid appeal fee was not required because the appeal was not admitted. A separate possibility to challenge the refusal itself is provided.

Outcome of this decision

Refuse to admit XX’s appeal and deem it returned. Leave the state legal aid application undecided; no fee is payable for the appeal that was not admitted.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

Refuse to admit XX’s appeal against the Viru Maakohus judgment of 26 February 201 9 and deem the appeal returned to XX.

Case 2-14-62722Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 42 korteriühistu · 80054903

HeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesChanges to or disconnection from heatingApartment association bills, payments and debtsBills and justification of chargesApartment association meetings and decisionsBudget, management plan and ratesDebt claims

How it started · editorial summary

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

Related prepared acts from this case are also shown.

08.06.2017 · JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-14-62722/55Read act

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

How it started · 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.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

2. Allow the appeal in part.

18.05.2018 · RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-62722/89Read actFirst instance18.05.2018

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

How it started · 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.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

2. Terminate proceedings in civil case No. 2-14-62722.

Case 2-15-18123Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 19 korteriühistu · 80021192

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeArticles of association and amendmentsBudget, management plan and ratesApartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the boardParking and groundsConstruction of parking facilities

How it started · editorial summary

The court approved the agreement between Narva linn and the association on nullity of the listed meeting decisions and reimbursement of costs; proceedings were terminated.

10.11.2017 · RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-18123/43Read actFirst instance10.11.2017

Separate act page

Kangelaste 19: court approved city and association’s agreement on nullity of meeting decisions

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn · Narva Linnaelamu · Kangelaste pr 19 korteriühistu · · 11129843 · 80021192

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — Narva linn through Narva Linnaelamu; defendant — apartment association; parties’ representatives XX; former management board chair XX

How it started · editorial summary

The court approved the agreement between Narva linn and the association on nullity of the listed meeting decisions and reimbursement of costs; proceedings were terminated.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court approved an agreement between Narva linn, acting through Narva Linnaelamu, and the apartment association Kangelaste pr 19 and terminated the case. The city challenged the association’s general meeting decision of 20 June 2015, seeking a finding of nullity, meaning absence of legal effect, or alternatively to have it set aside. Under the agreement, the association accepted that the meeting decisions of 11 February 2016 electing a board, choosing an audit firm, confirming the meeting decision of 20 June 2015 and amending the articles were void because the convening procedure had been breached. The agreement also lists related decisions on reporting, the management plan, board activities and membership, moving a playground and building a parking area, which the parties acknowledged as void. The court checked that the agreement did not conflict with the law, good morals or the public interest. The association undertook to reimburse the city a 150 euro fee and 1100 euros in legal assistance costs. The court additionally ordered a refund to the city of 150 euros of the fee paid, payable after the ruling enters into force. The parties waived appeals. If the agreement is not performed, the creditor may apply to a bailiff; the act contains no information on actual performance.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement on nullity of the listed general meeting decisions and terminate proceedings. The association undertakes to reimburse the city a 150 euro fee and 1 100 euros in legal costs. The court ordered a further 150 euros in fees refunded to the city from the budget after entry into force.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

2. Terminate the proceedings in the case.

Case 2-13-34554Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 44 korteriühistu · 80183227

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

How it started · editorial summary

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

14.10.2014 · JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-13-34554/54Read actFirst instance14.10.2014

Separate act page

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

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Tallinna 44 · 80183227

Entry into force has not been reverified

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

How it started · editorial summary

The dispute and the court’s decision

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

Outcome of this decision

Supplement the judgment of 11 July 2014 with an account of the case and reasons. Order defendant XX to pay the apartment association Tallinna 44 a debt of 40 euros, 7,16 euros in late-payment interest and 190 euros in costs.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

2. Grant the claim.

Case 2-10-37634Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

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

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeBudget, management plan and ratesDocuments and informationInspection and copies of documentsReporting and review of expenditureApartment association bills, payments and debtsPayment accounting and set-off

How it started · editorial summary

Claimant XX sought a declaration of nullity and invalidation of the apartment association Narva Sõbralik meeting decisions of 06.05.2010, relying primarily on the failure to provide documents two weeks before discussion. The court considered XX’s appeal against Viru Maakohus’s dismissal judgment of 16.05.2011.

11.06.2012 · Judgment (kohtuotsus)Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-10-37634/39Read actAppeal11.06.2012

Separate act page

Apartment association Narva Sõbralik: three meeting decisions invalidated because documents were provided late

Judgment (kohtuotsus) · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Korteriühistu Narva Sõbralik · 80245744

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant XX; appellant; defendant – Korteriühistu Narva Sõbralik; other party to the appeal; defendant’s representative XX – representative of the association

How it started · editorial summary

The dispute and the court’s decision

Claimant XX challenged decisions of the apartment association Narva Sõbralik (now – Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 2a korteriühistu) general meeting of 6 May 2010, seeking a declaration that they were void from adoption or an order invalidating them. The dispute concerned advance access to the management plan, report and balance sheet. The claimant said the necessary documents had not been provided two weeks before the meeting. The association objected that the convening procedure had been followed, documents had been sent, and breach of the duty to inform did not by itself prevent the meeting from taking place. Viru Maakohus dismissed the claim on 16 May 2011. The first-instance court acknowledged that the period for examining documents had been breached but considered this insufficient to grant the claim. Claimant XX appealed for the judgment to be set aside. The circuit court agreed with the assessment of the evidence that documents had been provided late, but rejected the legal conclusion that this had no consequences. The management plan and report were handed over only three days before discussion; provision of the balance sheet had not been established. Under the rules then applied, advance access had to allow association members reasonable time to assess important management matters. That provision did not, however, require the audit committee’s report to be sent as well. The appeal was allowed in part. The court set aside the dismissal concerning approval of the 2009 report, the 2010 budget, and the 2010 repair work and repair fund contribution rate, and itself invalidated these three decisions. Dismissal of the challenge to the fourth decision, on how received payments were accounted for, remained unchanged: the court found no connection with the established breach. Costs at both levels were allocated 25% to claimant XX and 75% to the association; the association was also ordered to pay 50 euros in court fees to the state. The result invalidates specific decisions; it does not declare every decision of the meeting void from the outset.

Outcome of this decision

Allow the appeal in part. Set aside the first-instance dismissal of the challenge to decisions under items 1–3 of the 06.05.2010 meeting and give a new judgment in that part: invalidate approval of the 2009 report, the 2010 budget, and the 2010 repair work and repair fund contribution rate. Leave the rest unchanged. First-instance and appeal costs: 25% borne by claimant XX and 75% by the apartment association Narva Sõbralik. Order the association to pay 50 euros in court fees to the state within 15 days after the judgment becomes final.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

1. Allow the appeal in part.

Case 2-10-51755Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu · 80189721

HeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesApartment association bills, payments and debtsBills and justification of chargesApartment association meetings and decisionsBudget, management plan and ratesConvening meetings and advance notice

How it started · editorial summary

Claimant XX challenged charges and meeting decisions on payments. The association relied on the time limit for challenging decisions and reported correcting the heating calculation.

05.08.2011 · JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-10-51755/12Read actFirst instance05.08.2011

Separate act page

Puškini tn. 12: challenge to decisions and charges dismissed after expiry of the three-month time limit

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Puškini tn.12 korteriühistu · 80189721

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant XX — owner of non-residential premises; claimant’s adviser XX; defendant — Puškini tn.12 korteriühistu; association’s management board member XX; association’s contractual representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

Claimant XX challenged charges and meeting decisions on payments. The association relied on the time limit for challenging decisions and reported correcting the heating calculation.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Claimant XX, the owner of non-residential premises, challenged charges made by the apartment association Puškini tn. 12. The claimant referred to an overstated floor area used for heating charges, payments for rent, advertising and waste collection, and the lack of an opportunity to examine meeting decisions in time. In an amended claim, the claimant sought to have decisions from 2003, 2005 and 2008, and the charges based on them, set aside. The association objected that the claimant was its member, could participate in management and obtain documents, and had missed the time limit for challenging decisions. It also reported recalculating heating charges according to the area of the property. The court examined these positions and noted that, under the law applied at the time, decisions on management of the building were binding on association members. The claimant argued that the minutes had only been received with the defence in December 2010. The court found it unproven that the claimant had learned of the disputed decisions only then: the claimant had known about the disputed payments by January 2010, but formulated the specific request to set aside the decisions in January 2011. The court concluded that the three-month time limit for bringing the challenge had expired. By its judgment of 5 August 2011, the court dismissed the claim in full. Claimant XX was left to bear both the claimant’s own costs and the association’s costs; their monetary amount was not determined in the operative part. The court dismissed the claim because the time limit had expired and the decisions remained binding; it did not separately examine the correctness of every monthly charge. It referred specifically to the recalculation of heating charges confirmed by an invoice. This decision does not describe the subsequent course of the case.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss the claim challenging the charges in full. Leave the defendant association’s costs to claimant XX and the claimant’s own costs to the claimant. The operative part does not determine the monetary amount of reimbursement.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

Dismiss […] the claim against Puškini tn. 12 korteriühistu […] in full. […] Leave the claimant’s procedural costs entirely to the claimant.

Case 2-08-63694Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

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

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

How it started · editorial summary

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

10.12.2010 · JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-08-63694/26Read actAppeal10.12.2010

Separate act page

Repair contributions and allocation by area

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Korteriühistu Narva Sõbralik · 80245744

Entry into force has not been reverified

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

How it started · editorial summary

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

The dispute and the court’s decision

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

Outcome of this decision

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

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

Allow the appeal.

Case 2-10-22246Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 20 korteriühistu · 80061866

Apartment association meetings and decisionsArticles of association and amendmentsBudget, management plan and ratesApartment association bills, payments and debtsBills and justification of charges

How it started · editorial summary

A company that was a member of the association challenged an amendment to the articles and a management plan establishing different maintenance rates for individuals and legal entities.

29.09.2010 · JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-10-22246/11Read actFirst instance29.09.2010

Separate act page

Puškini 20: provisions imposing different rates for individuals and legal entities set aside

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

OÜ Esteetilise Meditsiini Keskus Gratsija · KÜ Puškini 20 · 10228595 · 80061866

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — OÜ Esteetilise Meditsiini Keskus Gratsija; defendant — KÜ Puškini 20; claimant’s representative XX — management board member; association’s representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

A company that was a member of the association challenged an amendment to the articles and a management plan establishing different maintenance rates for individuals and legal entities.

The dispute and the court’s decision

OÜ Esteetilise Meditsiini Keskus Gratsija challenged decisions of the apartment association Puškini 20’s meeting of 1 April 2010. The company objected to changes to the articles of association and management plan that allowed maintenance charges to be calculated differently for individuals and legal entities. The claimant argued for payment in proportion to floor area and also said it had not been given the draft plan. The association justified the additional burden of business premises by reference to visitors, security, cleaning and maintenance of common areas. It argued that distributing additional costs equally would be unfair and that the necessary documents had been sent to the claimant. The annual plan applied different calculation figures to the two groups: 82,91 and 125,79 kroons per square metre. The court found that floor area was used for everyone, but the rates differed according to the category of owner and the use of the premises. Applying the rules then in force, it distinguished an alternative method of allocating particular types of costs from different maintenance rates for different groups. In the court’s view, the option to provide a different calculation method in the articles did not justify introducing such different rates. The court disagreed that the draft management plan had not been supplied at all, but noted that the allocation method had not been sent to the claimant. By its judgment of 29 September 2010, it granted the claim, setting aside the relevant part of the amendment to clause 4.2e of the articles and the part of the management plan providing for a special calculation of costs. This set aside specific provisions; it did not declare all the meeting’s decisions void. The association was ordered to bear the claimant’s costs as well as its own; the judgment did not determine their monetary amount.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the claim. Set aside the part of the decision under agenda item 4 amending clause 4.2e of the articles that allowed different allocation rules for the two groups, and the part of the decision under agenda item 3 providing for a special calculation of management costs in the 2010 plan. The association is to bear the claimant’s costs and its own costs.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

1. Grant the claim. […] 2. Set aside the general meeting decision of korteriühistu Puškini 20 of 01 April (the decision adopted under agenda item 4) insofar as it amended the wording of clause 4.2e of the association’s articles, […] between two groups of owners (individuals and legal entities).