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 2-16-11341Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 9 korteriühistu · 80289285

Contracts and servicesPayment, advance payments and refunds

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought repayment of a contractual advance; the company and second defendant did not respond after service of the claim by public notice.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-11341/17Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Võidu 9: company and second defendant ordered by default to refund an advance

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Võidu 9 Narva · Farkam SV OÜ · 80289285 · 12991651

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – KÜ Võidu 9 Narva; Defendant – Farkam SV OÜ; Second defendant XX; Organisations’ representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought repayment of a contractual advance; the company and second defendant did not respond after service of the claim by public notice.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court granted the claim by the apartment association Võidu 9 Narva for repayment of an advance by default. Farkam SV OÜ and defendant XX were ordered jointly and severally to repay the advance and 225 euros in court fees. Joint and several liability is a shared obligation: the association may seek the amount from either debtor but may not collect the full amount twice. The association relied on two contracts, signed on 28 March and 1 April 2016, and the advance transferred under them. It alleged that the defendants had not properly performed their contractual obligations and therefore sought repayment. The judgment does not disclose the detailed subject of the works or substantive objections from the defendants. The claim and the ruling accepting it were served on the defendants by public notice through Ametlikud Teadaanded; the court deemed service completed on 15 December 2016. No response arrived within the 14 days allowed. The court granted the claim under the default judgment rules. The judgment was declared immediately enforceable without security. The court also provided for service of the judgment itself by public notice, as it was unknown to whom and where it could be delivered in the ordinary way. The judgment does not establish actual repayment of the advance or payment of the awarded costs.

Outcome of this decision

Award the association repayment of the advance and 225 euros in costs jointly and severally against Farkam SV OÜ and XX. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security; service by public notice is provided for.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. The default judgment is immediately enforceable without security.
First instance
Case 2-16-12370Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, V. Gerassimovi tn 24 korteriühistu · 80152362

Contracts and servicesWorks contracts and designPayment, advance payments and refunds

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought repayment of an advance under a contract it said had not been performed; the company did not respond to the claim.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-12370/5Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Gerassimovi 24: company ordered by default to refund an advance for key cutting

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Gerassimovi 24 · OÜ Farkam · 80152362 · 10176071

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – KÜ Gerassimovi 24; Defendant – OÜ Farkam; Organisations’ legal representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought repayment of an advance under a contract it said had not been performed; the company did not respond to the claim.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court granted the apartment association Gerassimovi 24’s claim against OÜ Farkam by default and awarded repayment of a 750-euro advance. It separately awarded 125 euros in court fees against the company. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security. According to the association, the parties entered a key-copying contract on 3 February 2016. The association transferred a 750-euro advance on 12 February, but the company did not do the work or respond to the complaint. The association sought its money back. The claim and the ruling accepting it were served on the company on 31 October 2016 by placement in the mailbox at its registered address. No response arrived within the 14 days allowed. The court granted the claim under the default judgment procedure. The association did not supply a statement of litigation costs despite being given time to do so. The court therefore quantified costs on the materials available: payment of a 125-euro court fee was established, and no other costs were identified. The judgment confirms the company’s obligation to refund the advance and reimburse the fee, but not actual receipt of the money by the association.

Outcome of this decision

Award the association 750 euros as repayment of the advance and 125 euros in court fees against OÜ Farkam. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. The default judgment is immediately enforceable without security.
First instance
Case 2-15-8056Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Rahu tn 16d korteriühistu · 80175363

The apartment association as employerEmployment contract termsTermination of employment contractsPay and compensationContracts and services

How it started · editorial summary

The court classified the relationship between the manager and the association as a mandate agreement and left the request to set aside the board decision without examination.

· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-15-8056/57Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Rahu 16D: manager’s agreement not treated as employment; challenge to a board decision left without examination

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Korteriühistu RAHU 16D · 80175363

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and appellant XX — manager; Defendant — Korteriühistu RAHU 16D; Association’s representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

The court classified the relationship between the manager and the association as a mandate agreement and left the request to set aside the board decision without examination.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Tartu Ringkonnakohus upheld dismissal of XX’s employment and monetary claims against the apartment association RAHU 16D, changing the reasons. However, it replaced dismissal on the merits of the request to set aside a board decision with a decision leaving that part of the claim without examination. Formally, the appeal was dismissed. The claimant acted as building manager and considered the relationship employment. The claimant challenged termination, seeking reinstatement and payments. The appeal sought 128 euros in unpaid remuneration, 512 euros for failure to observe the notice period and 2041 euros for enforced absence. The association argued that the parties had entered into a management services agreement, not an employment contract. The court examined the actual working conditions. The manager independently chose how, when and where to perform tasks and organised repairs, contracts and reporting. The agreement contained no terms on working hours, leave or daily supervision. The court therefore classified it as a mandate agreement: independent performance of tasks in the association’s interests. Neither a tax reporting entry nor comments from the board in themselves turned the relationship into employment. The court found termination of the indefinite mandate agreement permissible and saw no basis for applying remedies for unlawful dismissal of an employee. The separate claim for 128 euros for work already performed was also unsubstantiated. The court did not determine the challenge to the board decision on the merits: the manager was not entitled to bring that claim in the capacity chosen. That part of the earlier judgment was set aside and replaced with a procedural decision. The association’s request to obtain additional information was also refused. Costs at both instances were allocated to the claimant; the county court will determine their amount separately. Actual performance has not been established.

Outcome of this decision

Uphold dismissal of the employment and monetary claims with amended reasons. Set aside the earlier judgment regarding the board decision and leave that part of the claim without examination. Dismiss the appeal; XX bears costs at both instances, with the amount to be determined separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
4. Dismiss the appeal.
Appeal
Case 2-14-56990Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Soldina tn 4 korteriühistu · 80175156

Contracts and servicesPayment, advance payments and refundsDocuments and informationReporting and review of expenditureApartment association board and managementHandover of documents and affairs

How it started · editorial summary

Ending services to save money did not remove the agreed notice period or payment for it.

· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-14-56990/31Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Tiimani 4: accounting fees and notice of termination

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ Tiimani 4 · 80175156

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and appellant — accounting service provider XX; defendant — KÜ Tiimani 4

How it started · editorial summary

Ending services to save money did not remove the agreed notice period or payment for it.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Tiimani 4 (now — Narva linn, Soldina tn 4 korteriühistu). Service provider XX sought two months of accounting fees, compensation for shortened notice and late-payment interest from KÜ Tiimani 4. The appellate court reversed the first-instance dismissal and allowed the claim. The agreement was a mandate contract: ongoing accounting is a continuing service rather than production of a distinct result. There was no employment contract between the parties. The association’s notice cited saving money as its reason. Breaches justifying termination without the agreed notice were not proved. Later demands for documents and a contract with a new accountant did not establish grounds for the notice already sent. The association’s alleged losses were not established either. The contract required 60 days’ written notice. The association’s refusal of further services before that period expired did not release it from the duty to pay. The court upheld two months’ fees and the claim for the remaining month, assessing the amount by established monthly practice and comparable services. Payment for services, compensation for the remaining notice period and accrued late-payment interest were awarded. Further late-payment interest until performance was neither sought nor awarded. Costs in both instances were reduced to 375 euros in view of the claim value and ordinary complexity: a 175-euro fee and 200 euros for legal assistance. Translation costs lacked documentary proof. Actual payment of the award was not established.

Outcome of this decision

The first-instance dismissal was reversed; the claim and appeal were allowed. The association must pay for services, the remaining notice period, fixed late-payment interest and reduced costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
4. Allow XX’s appeal.
Appeal
Case 2-16-102866Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Uusküla tn 1 korteriühistu · 80175825

Contracts and servicesWorks contracts and designPayment, advance payments and refundsApartment association bills, payments and debtsLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

How it started · editorial summary

The court approved the agreed payment and late-payment interest, terminated the dispute and awarded the company a refund of half the court fee.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-102866/5Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Uusküla 1 and Katuse ABC: works contract dispute ended by agreement

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Katuse ABC Osaühing · UUSKÜLA TN 1 KORTERIÜHISTU · 11336757 · 80175825

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – Katuse ABC Osaühing; Defendant – UUSKÜLA TN 1 KORTERIÜHISTU

How it started · editorial summary

The court approved the agreed payment and late-payment interest, terminated the dispute and awarded the company a refund of half the court fee.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Katuse ABC Osaühing brought a works contract claim against the apartment association Uusküla tn 1. The parties settled the dispute by an agreement which the court approved, terminating proceedings. The initial 914,75 euros had been claimed in payment order proceedings; following the association’s objection, the case was transferred to ordinary civil proceedings. The agreement records an acknowledged debt of 85,25 euros* and provides for payment to the company of 82,25 euros* by 15 April 2016, with early payment allowed. If the payment obligation is breached, the company may demand late-payment interest of 0,1% per day on the unpaid amount until payment. The parties waived claims under the former contract and acquired rights under the agreement. The company confirmed that it had no other claims against the association arising from the contract or the circumstances of this case. Each bears its own costs, and the parties have no mutual claims regarding their allocation. The company was awarded a refund of 22,50 euros, half the court fee paid, when the agreement enters into force. The court explained that breach of the terms could lead to compulsory enforcement and that the same dispute could not be brought again. Actual payment by the association or refund of the fee is not confirmed.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement and terminate proceedings. It records a debt of 85,25 euros* and payment of 82,25 euros* by 15 April 2016. Upon delay, late-payment interest is 0,1% per day on the unpaid amount until payment. Each bears its own costs; the company is refunded 22,50 euros in court fees when the agreement enters into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
II. Terminate proceedings on the claim by Katuse ABC Osaühing […]
First instance
Case 2-16-3485Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Rahu tn 22 korteriühistu · 80218569

Contracts and services

How it started · editorial summary

The association could not obtain confirmation of assignment through a claim against an already deleted company; the court explained another possible procedural route.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-3485/2Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Rahu 22: assignment claim refused because the defendant company had been deleted from the register

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KORTERIÜHISTU RAHU 22 NARVA · Lex Inkasso OÜ · 80218569 · 11730109

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – KORTERIÜHISTU RAHU 22 NARVA; Company named as defendant – Lex Inkasso OÜ; Person concerned by the assigned claim – XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association could not obtain confirmation of assignment through a claim against an already deleted company; the court explained another possible procedural route.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Rahu 22 Narva sought a declaration that Lex Inkasso OÜ had assigned a claim to it. According to the association’s application, the claim against XX had been awarded by a judgment of 10 February 2011 and then transferred by a written agreement. The bailiff would not accept the documents for enforcement without notarised confirmation of the agreement or a court ruling. The court refused to accept the new claim for proceedings. Lex Inkasso OÜ had been deleted from the register on 16 November 2015 and could not be a party to proceedings. The court identified no universal legal successor that could replace the company as defendant. Transfer of a specific claim made the association its acquirer, but did not make it a person who could be both claimant and defendant in the same dispute. The court pointed to a possible separate application for liquidation measures concerning the deleted company. It explained that those proceedings could resolve notarisation of the assignment with a liquidator. No liquidation was ordered in this case, and no independent judicial finding confirmed the assignment. Costs were left with the association; no amounts were recoverable. This ruling did not determine the merits of XX’s underlying debt or whether it could actually be recovered.

Outcome of this decision

Refuse to accept for proceedings the association’s claim against Lex Inkasso OÜ seeking confirmation of assignment. The association bears its costs; there are no reimbursable costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. The claimant shall bear the litigation costs. There are no reimbursable litigation costs.
First instance
Case 2-15-2902Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 7 korteriühistu · 80189247

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayBills and justification of chargesContracts and services

How it started · editorial summary

An established assignment does not replace proof of the late-payment interest calculation.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-2902/11Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Võidu 7: assignment of debt and inadequate calculation of some late-payment interest

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Auvõlg OÜ · KÜ Võidu 7 · 11901152 ·

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — assignee Auvõlg OÜ; defendant — owner XX; original creditor — KÜ Võidu 7

How it started · editorial summary

An established assignment does not replace proof of the late-payment interest calculation.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Võidu 7 assigned its management-charge claims against owner XX to Auvõlg OÜ. The court found the assignment, ownership and principal debt established; the new creditor could seek performance in place of the association. The defendant’s response was treated as a denial of the claim and the dispute was examined on its merits. The claim was allowed in part: principal, substantiated accrued late-payment interest and further late-payment interest of 0.07% per day on unpaid principal from 26 February 2015 until payment were awarded. Earlier late-payment interest was refused because the claim lacked a clear and unambiguous calculation. Costs were apportioned: 62% to the defendant and 38% to the company. The company was awarded 186 euros in state fees. An award does not establish actual payment.

Outcome of this decision

The new creditor was awarded principal and some late-payment interest; earlier late-payment interest was refused for inadequate calculation.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Allow the claim in part.
First instance
Case 2-15-105631Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 9 korteriühistu · 80170532

Contracts and servicesTenancy and leaseApartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayDamage and insuranceFire

How it started · editorial summary

The court did not establish a rent exemption in exchange for repairs.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-105631/33Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Rent following a fire

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Kangelaste 9 · MTÜ Uus Võimalus · 80170532 · 80353936

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and landlord — KÜ Kangelaste 9; defendant and tenant — MTÜ Uus Võimalus

How it started · editorial summary

The court did not establish a rent exemption in exchange for repairs.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Kangelaste 9 (now — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 9 korteriühistu). KÜ Kangelaste 9 leased non-residential premises to MTÜ Uus Võimalus. After a fire, the tenant disputed rent for September and October 2014, citing unusability and a promised rent exemption in exchange for repairs. The court found no proof of that agreement and held the termination notice non-compliant. The handover record and testimony established termination on 25 October 2014. Crediting 38.13 euros paid after the claim, the court awarded debt of 782.15 euros, accrued late-payment interest of 278.67 euros and 0.1% per day on unpaid principal from 7 November 2015 until performance. Collection costs of 40 euros and procedural costs of 1,268 euros were also awarded. This decides the particular contract and does not establish subsequent payment.

Outcome of this decision

Debt of 782.15 euros, late-payment interest of 278.67 euros and continuing late-payment interest, 40 euros collection costs and 1,268 euros procedural costs awarded.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Allow the claim in full.
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