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 2-21-2127Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 11 korteriühistu · 80170749

Apartment association meetings and decisions

How it started · editorial summary

Applicant XX’s successors did not wish to continue challenging the meeting decision. The court resumed the suspended case and terminated it without deciding validity.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-21-2127/35Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kangelaste prospekt 11: meeting decision dispute ended after successors declined to continue

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 11 korteriühistu · 80170749

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: original applicant XX; applicant’s legal successor XX; other legal successor of the applicant XX; interested person — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 11 korteriühistu; participants’ representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

Applicant XX’s successors did not wish to continue challenging the meeting decision. The court resumed the suspended case and terminated it without deciding validity.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court ended consideration of an application challenging the apartment association Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 11’s meeting decision of 20 December 2020. The ruling did not assess the decision’s validity. Original applicant XX died during proceedings, and the court suspended the case until someone able to continue was identified. It later established legal successors and asked their views. They did not wish to join and requested termination because the matter was no longer relevant. The association also requested termination and did not seek to have successors summoned to continue. The court noted that succession was possible in the dispute. However, it could not independently compel successors to continue. Having offered them an opportunity to join, it treated their unwillingness to continue as a refusal to pursue further consideration of the application and applied by analogy the rules on termination following waiver of a demand. The ruling of 20 January 2025 first resumed and then terminated proceedings. Each participant bears their own costs; no mutual reimbursement was awarded. This is procedural termination, not dismissal following examination of the meeting decision.

Outcome of this decision

Resume and terminate proceedings in case 2-21-2127. Each participant bears their own costs; there are no reimbursable costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Resume proceedings in civil case No 2-21-2127. 2. Terminate proceedings in civil case No 2-21-2127.
First instance
Case 2-22-7596Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Soldina tn 2 korteriühistu · 80180921

Apartment association meetings and decisionsVoting and representationArticles of association and amendments

How it started · editorial summary

Applicant XX sought a finding of nullity of the apartment association Soldina tn 2’s decisions of 20.04.2022 adopted without convening a meeting.

· Ruling on an application challenging general meeting decisionsViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-22-7596/5Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Apartment association Soldina tn 2’s written voting decisions declared void for breach of articles

Ruling on an application challenging general meeting decisions · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Soldina tn 2 korteriühistu · 80180921

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant XX; interested person — Narva linn, Soldina tn 2 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

Applicant XX sought a finding of nullity of the apartment association Soldina tn 2’s decisions of 20.04.2022 adopted without convening a meeting.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Applicant XX sought a finding that Narva linn, Soldina tn 2 korteriühistu’s decisions were void, meaning without legal effect from adoption. They were recorded in minutes dated 20 April 2022 after written voting on 5–19 April. Owners received a ballot with 22 draft decisions and business activity documents. The minutes recorded positions from 110 participants and declared most drafts adopted. The applicant cited clause 6.14 of the articles: written decisions were equivalent to meeting decisions only if all association members participated. The association acknowledged the facts and agreed the application should be granted. The court nevertheless independently examined the articles, ballots and minutes. It found no question had been voted on by all members, breaching the articles’ procedure. It declared the decisions void on that basis. It separately explained that the applicant sought nullity, not setting aside: prior objection to the drafts was not a necessary prerequisite for such a request. Despite granting the application, each party retained its own costs. The court found no confirmation that the applicant had notified the association of nullity before applying, while the association admitted the requests immediately. It considered the dispute could have been settled without proceedings and awarded no participant reimbursement. The act concerns written voting procedure in this association; it contains no independent assessment of the business merits of each draft.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the application and declare the owners’ decisions of 20.04.2022 at the apartment association Soldina tn 2 on the written voting questions of 05–19.04.2022 void. Each participant bears their own costs; there are no reimbursable costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Grant the application.
First instance
Case 2-22-18555Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Suur tn 12 korteriühistu · 80218997

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeDocuments and informationInspection and copies of documentsReporting and review of expenditure

How it started · editorial summary

Applicant XX sought to set aside or establish nullity of the annual report approval decision; the court examined prior access to documents.

· Court rulingViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-22-18555/10Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Suur tn 12: annual report approval void because document inspection procedure was not communicated

Court ruling · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Suur tn 12 korteriühistu · 80218997

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant XX — person challenging the decision; interested person — Narva linn, Suur tn 12 korteriühistu (80218997); applicant’s representative XX; association’s representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

Applicant XX sought to set aside or establish nullity of the annual report approval decision; the court examined prior access to documents.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Applicant XX challenged item 2 of Narva linn, Suur tn 12 korteriühistu’s meeting decisions of 11 October 2022 approving the 2021 annual report. The applicant said members received an audit report and an income and expenditure report, while the annual report later filed with the register differed in content. Preparation for voting and completeness of information were also challenged. The association objected that alleged inaccuracies in accounting documents did not themselves justify setting aside the decision. It considered posting a meeting notice and allowing members to request the full report from the board sufficient. It cited noticeboards’ limited size to explain the amount of information displayed. The court focused on inspection arrangements. The notice gave date, time, place and agenda but not where and how to inspect the documents for approval. The materials supplied beforehand did not contain all the essential data, including expenses for each apartment ownership. The court held that an opportunity to approach the board independently does not replace the mandatory communication of inspection arrangements. This prevented applicant XX from voting on the annual report on an informed basis. The ruling of 19 August 2024 found only challenged item 2 without legal effect from adoption, or void, because of a material convening breach. The court did not consider other meeting decisions and found other objections to reporting figures unnecessary to resolve this question. Costs were allocated to the association and a 50 euro fee awarded to applicant XX. The outcome therefore concerns the report approval procedure and does not confirm all allegations of inaccurate accounting data.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the application and declare item 2 of the association’s meeting decision of 11.10.2022 approving the 2021 report void. Allocate all costs to the association and award applicant XX a 50 euro fee.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Declare item 2 of Narva linn, Suur tn 12 korteriühistu’s general meeting decision of 11 October 2022 void.
First instance
Case 2-21-10232Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Madise tn 1, Madise tn 3, Malmi tn 3, Malmi tn 5 korteriühistu · 80152178

Apartment association meetings and decisionsVoting and representationBudget, management plan and ratesDocuments and informationReporting and review of expenditure

How it started · editorial summary

XX challenged written resolutions on the association’s report and management plan. The first-instance dismissal was ultimately restored by Riigikohus, while costs were allocated differently across the instances.

· Court orderViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-21-10232/44Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Written voting on an association’s report and management plan

Court order · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Madise tn 1, Madise tn 3, Malmi tn 3, Malmi tn 5 korteriühistu · 80152178

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — XX; Person concerned — Narva linn, Madise tn 1, Madise tn 3, Malmi tn 3, Malmi tn 5 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

XX challenged written resolutions on the association’s report and management plan. The first-instance dismissal was ultimately restored by Riigikohus, while costs were allocated differently across the instances.

The dispute and the court’s decision

XX sought to have resolutions of Narva linn, Madise tn 1, Madise tn 3, Malmi tn 3, Malmi tn 5 korteriühistu, recorded on 28.04.2021, declared void or invalidated. They approved the 2020 report and 2021 management and works plan by written voting without a meeting. XX alleged missing board signatures on the report, deficiencies in the plan and failure to meet a unanimity requirement under the articles. The first-instance court found that the documents had been circulated in advance and XX could participate. It treated missing signatures as a formal defect that had not materially misrepresented the association’s finances in this case. It considered the plan sufficiently informative. It rejected an interpretation requiring every member to participate and found a quorum. The court also considered later resolutions with the same content. It dismissed the application on its merits rather than leaving it unexamined, and imposed costs on XX. On 20 December 2024, Tartu Ringkonnakohus reversed the dismissal and declared the challenged points void. On 14 May 2025, however, Riigikohus restored the first-instance dismissal of the application. First-instance costs were left with the association, while appeal and Supreme Court costs were imposed on XX. The original allocation of all costs to XX was therefore not restored.

Outcome of this decision

The first-instance dismissal was reversed by Tartu Ringkonnakohus on 20 December 2024 and restored by Riigikohus on 14 May 2025. First-instance costs were allocated to the association, and appeal and Supreme Court costs to XX. The original allocation of all costs was not restored.

A checked extract in this language is not yet available.

First instance
Case 2-21-6288Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12 korteriühistu · 80175498

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeVoting and representationBudget, management plan and ratesDocuments and informationInspection and copies of documentsReporting and review of expenditureApartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the boardRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairsParking and groundsConstruction of parking facilities

How it started · editorial summary

Nine applicants XX challenged the apartment association Kangelaste prospekt 12 written decisions for 2021; the association denied breaches.

· Ruling leaving an application unexaminedViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-21-6288/16Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Dispute over Kangelaste prospekt 12 decisions left unexamined after renewed confirmation

Ruling leaving an application unexamined · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12 korteriühistu · 80175498

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicants XX – nine individuals; interested person – Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

Nine applicants XX challenged the apartment association Kangelaste prospekt 12 written decisions for 2021; the association denied breaches.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Nine applicants XX sought a declaration that the Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12 korteriühistu decisions of 22 February 2021 were void, meaning without legal effect from adoption, or alternatively their invalidation. The written vote concerned accounts, management and repair plans, video surveillance, parking and board elections. The applicants relied on one participant not receiving drafts, deficiencies in financial documents and breaches of candidate nomination procedure. The association objected that drafts were sent, papers were made available for inspection, accounts had been checked and alternative candidates received insufficient votes. The court did not decide these disagreements on their merits. Register data showed that the general meeting of 15 March 2022 had confirmed the 2021 decisions. The court found no information that the new decision had been challenged. It asked the applicants to explain their continuing personal legal interest in review of the former vote and substantiate invalidation. No response arrived in time. The court considered that the old decisions’ legal effects could no longer be removed by this application: the same provisions applied under the new, unchallenged decision. The applicants explained no other independent interest. The application was therefore left unexamined. This is not a judicial finding that the original procedure was lawful or a rejection of nullity arguments on their merits. Each participant bears its own costs, which the court did not quantify. The court clarified the challenged decisions’ date from the minutes as 22 February, although applicants initially gave 14 February 2021.

Outcome of this decision

Leave the application to declare the decisions of 22.02.2021 void or invalidate them unexamined. Leave costs with the participants who incurred them, without quantification.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. The participants shall bear their own litigation costs. Given this allocation, the court will not quantify them.
First instance
Case 2-23-11384Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Vestervalli tn 6 korteriühistu · 80170874

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeArticles of association and amendmentsVoting and representationAgenda and minutesDocuments and informationInspection and copies of documentsReporting and review of expenditure

How it started · editorial summary

Applicant XX sought review of the apartment association Vestervalli tn 6 decisions of 12.06.2023 on the report and articles; the association denied the grounds.

· Ruling on an application challenging general meeting decisionsViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-23-11384/19Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Vestervalli tn 6: report approval declared void because provision of materials was not proved

Ruling on an application challenging general meeting decisions · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Vestervalli tn 6 korteriühistu · 80170874

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant XX; interested person – Narva linn, Vestervalli tn 6 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

Applicant XX sought review of the apartment association Vestervalli tn 6 decisions of 12.06.2023 on the report and articles; the association denied the grounds.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Applicant XX challenged the Narva linn, Vestervalli tn 6 korteriühistu general meeting decisions of 12 June 2023 on the board’s 2022 report and a new version of the articles. XX alleged that annual accounts had not been received beforehand and that votes and participation by a person interested in changing payments were handled incorrectly in the articles vote. The association objected that only a board activity report was discussed, materials were sent and adoption of new articles was postponed altogether. The court first examined grounds for nullity, meaning no legal effect from adoption. It found that the association submitted an annual report to the register after the meeting and rejected the assertion that only an informal activity report was considered. The applicant had given the association an email address, so preparation materials had to be sent there. The original email supplied contained the agenda, but the court could not establish attachments. Their appearance in an email forwarded to the representative did not prove timely delivery to the applicant. Failure to provide the materials was a substantial defect in meeting preparation that prevented informed voting. The first decision, approving the board’s 2022 report, was declared void. For the articles, the result differed: the minutes showed postponement to the next meeting and no adoption of a new version. The court rejected that part because there was no decision to declare void or invalidate. It therefore did not examine vote counting or voting restrictions. As the application succeeded only partly, each participant retained its own costs.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the application in part: declare decision No. 1 approving the board’s 2022 report void. Dismiss the remainder. Each participant bears its own costs, which are not to be quantified.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Grant the applicant’s application in part and declare decision number one of the Narva linn, Vestervalli tn 6 korteriühistu general meeting of 12.06.2023 — to approve the board’s 2022 report — void. Dismiss the application in all other respects.
First instance
Case 2-23-8203Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 18a korteriühistu · 80170383

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayApartment association meetings and decisionsQuorum and repeat meetingsRights in real propertyOwnership and register entries

How it started · editorial summary

The court distinguished debt recovery from compulsory transfer.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-23-8203/9Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Refusal of transfer claim and recovery of debt

Judgment · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 18a korteriühistu · 80170383

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 18a korteriühistu; defendant XX — owner

How it started · editorial summary

The court distinguished debt recovery from compulsory transfer.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 18a korteriühistu sought management-charge debt and compulsory transfer of XX’s apartment ownership. The defendant filed no objections. Only 23 of 90 members participated in the initial owners’ decision where a majority was required; the court held it void. A later decision was supported by 48 of 90. However, three months for voluntary transfer must expire after a valid demand before proceedings are brought; time cannot run from a void decision. The transfer claim was refused. Proven monetary debt, accrued and continuing statutory late-payment interest on the principal were awarded, together with 430* euros in costs and statutory late-payment interest on those costs from the judgment’s entry into force. Performance is not established.

Outcome of this decision

Compulsory transfer claim dismissed; debt, late-payment interest and 430* euros in costs awarded.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Allow the claim of Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 18a korteriühistu in part.
First instance
Case 2-21-2660Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 11 korteriühistu · 80170749

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeVoting and representationAgenda and minutesApartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the board

How it started · editorial summary

The written decisions on the board have no legal effect: the ballot questions did not show precisely what owners were voting on. The court did not separately assess whether enough votes were cast.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-21-2660/20Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kangelaste prospekt 11: written decisions on the board declared void because voting questions were unclear

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 11 korteriühistu · 80170749

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant XX – owner; interested person – Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 11 korteriühistu; applicant’s representative XX; association representative XX; board candidates XX

How it started · editorial summary

The written decisions on the board have no legal effect: the ballot questions did not show precisely what owners were voting on. The court did not separately assess whether enough votes were cast.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court declared the written decisions of owners of the apartment association Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 11 dated 22 December 2020 void. They had no legal effect from adoption because owners were not given clearly formulated voting questions. Applicant XX challenged a board election held without a meeting. The noticeboard named two issues: recalling the former board and electing a new board with a chair. The ballot, however, listed candidate names and for-or-against options without separating those issues. The applicant also alleged that the majority required by the articles had not been obtained. The association objected that the document’s substance mattered more than its title and the procedure had been followed. The board later decided not to implement the disputed decisions or change the register entry. The association proposed settlement with partial fee reimbursement. The applicant disagreed, including over costs allocation. The court found that the ballots did not make clear whether a vote meant recall of the old board or election of the new one. In a written vote, owners must have a clear draft decision. Its absence and unclear questions were a substantial breach of decision-making procedure. Having established nullity, the court did not examine the sufficiency of votes as a separate ground for invalidation. The board’s refusal to implement the decisions and absence of a register entry did not remove the owner’s interest in judicial review: validity does not depend only on submission to the register. The ruling of 5 September 2023 granted the application. The applicant’s costs were imposed on the association, which must also bear its own. The court left monetary quantification for a separate decision after finality.

Outcome of this decision

Grant owner XX’s application and declare the association’s decisions of 22.12.2020 void. The association bears the applicant’s costs and its own. Quantify costs separately after the ruling becomes final.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Declare the decisions of the apartment owners of Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 11 korteriühistu of 22.12.2020 void.
First instance
Case 2-22-11550Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 13 korteriühistu · 80445319

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeBudget, management plan and ratesArticles of association and amendmentsApartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the boardAuthority and representationRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairsAgenda and minutes

How it started · editorial summary

Owner XX obtained a declaration that decisions on repairs, the chair and maintenance charges were void. The court relied on breaches involving the agenda and preparation of the meeting.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-11550/8Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

P. Kerese tn 13: decisions on payments and chair void because of the meeting agenda

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 13 korteriühistu · 80445319

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant XX – owner; interested person – Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 13 korteriühistu; applicant’s representative XX; association representative and elected chair XX

How it started · editorial summary

Owner XX obtained a declaration that decisions on repairs, the chair and maintenance charges were void. The court relied on breaches involving the agenda and preparation of the meeting.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court declared several decisions of the apartment association Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 13 repeat meeting of 9 June 2022 without legal effect from adoption. Significant matters had not been identified in advance on the agenda, and access arrangements for the management plan being amended had not been provided. Owner XX challenged a special contribution of 5 euros per square metre to complete repairs, election of the chair, the chair’s monthly remuneration and a maintenance charge of 0,51 euros per square metre. XX argued that these decisions could not be taken under a general current-matters item. XX also disputed the meeting’s authority to elect the chair and the ability to impose payments outside the management plan. The association admitted the stated circumstances but asked that each participant bear its own costs. The applicant considered that the association should pay them. The court relied on the admitted facts: owners could not understand in advance which decisions would be taken. It regarded the chair and payments as significant matters and the convening breach as sufficient for nullity. Access arrangements for the management plan had not been properly specified. The court did not decide the other arguments: it imposed no general ban on a meeting electing a chair and did not separately assess payments outside the plan. The ruling of 10 October 2022 declared item 3 and items 4.1–4.3 void. Each bears its own costs. The court took account of the possibility of an out-of-court resolution and another meeting before the application was filed.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the application. Declare item 3 on the 5 euros/m² payment and items 4.1–4.3 on chair XX, monthly remuneration and the 0,51 euros/m² maintenance charge from 01.06.2022 void. Leave costs with the participants; none are reimbursed.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. The participants shall bear their own litigation costs. There are no reimbursable litigation costs.
First instance
Case 2-21-15967Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu · 80069939

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayBills and justification of chargesApartment association meetings and decisionsArticles of association and amendments

How it started · editorial summary

The association proved principal but not grounds to apply the articles’ maximum interest. The court awarded debt and statutory interest.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-21-15967/7Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 32: principal awarded, but articles’ interest ceiling not treated as an established rate

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu · 80069939

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu; interested person XX — owner; association’s representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association proved principal but not grounds to apply the articles’ maximum interest. The court awarded debt and statutory interest.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court awarded the apartment association Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 principal against owner XX but reduced the interest claim. The articles stated a maximum rate, but the association supplied no separate meeting decision establishing its application. The association sought payment for maintenance and utilities and charged interest of 0,07% per day. During proceedings it increased the claim for subsequent months and provided additional documents at the court’s request. The owner received the materials personally but submitted no position or objections. The court checked ownership, invoices, minutes approving rates, supplier documents and calculations. It found principal proved. The absence of objections did not replace that examination. It assessed interest differently. The articles required interest at the amount and in the manner set by the meeting, capped at “no more than 0,07% per day”. The court explained that a ceiling does not itself establish a rate of 0,07%. Without the necessary decision, it applied the statutory rate and calculated accrued interest on that basis instead of the sums sought. The ruling of 29 April 2022 partly granted the application, awarding principal, interest accrued at the statutory rate and further statutory interest on principal until performance. The interested person was left to bear their own costs and 90% of the association’s costs, with the remaining 10% borne by the association. The amount was to be determined separately. The act resolves a specific charging dispute and does not confirm that the award has already been paid.

Outcome of this decision

Partly grant the application. Award principal, accrued statutory interest and further statutory interest on principal until performance against interested person XX. Leave their own costs to them; allocate 90% of the association’s costs to them and 10% to the association. Determine the monetary amount separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Partly grant Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu’s application to recover debt from XX.
First instance
Case 2-20-11613Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, […] korteriühistu

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeBudget, management plan and ratesApartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the boardRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairs

How it started · editorial summary

The court examined resolutions of a repeat meeting and a later written vote. The appeal court retained the voidness of the management-plan and later election resolutions, removing only a reference to a point on which no decision had been made.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-20-11613/46Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Board replacement and a management plan: different consequences of notice defects

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, […] korteriühistu ·

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: First applicant — XX; Other applicants, elected board members — XX; Person concerned — Narva linn, […] korteriühistu; Person concerned, former board member — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The court examined resolutions of a repeat meeting and a later written vote. The appeal court retained the voidness of the management-plan and later election resolutions, removing only a reference to a point on which no decision had been made.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Two applications concerning an association whose name and code are redacted in the source were examined together. The first applicant, XX, challenged resolutions of a repeat meeting on 03.08.2020 convened by an initiative group after the board refused. Other applicants, XX, challenged written resolutions of 24.02.2021 on another board replacement organised by the former board. The court recognised the initiative group’s right to convene: enough members had submitted a reasoned request and the board had refused. The repeat meeting procedure was regarded as compliant. However, management-plan materials had not been made available in advance and the notice did not explain access to them. Points 3–6 concerning the chair’s remuneration, improvements, repairs and changes to the financial plan were therefore declared void. Challenges to points 1, 7, 8 and 9, including removal of the former board and election of its replacement, were dismissed. The written resolutions of 24.02.2021 were declared void because they were organised by the removed board, and no request to the valid new board had been proved. Each participant was left to bear their own costs. On 28 October 2022, Tartu Ringkonnakohus retained the substantive result and first-instance costs allocation. It removed only the reference to point 2 of the 3 August 2020 meeting from the dismissal, because no resolution had been adopted on that point. Appeal costs were placed on the appellants, including reimbursement of the other group’s costs.

Outcome of this decision

Points 3–6 of the 3 August 2020 resolutions and the 24 February 2021 resolutions were declared void; challenges to points 1, 7, 8 and 9 were dismissed. On 28 October 2022, Tartu Ringkonnakohus removed only the reference to point 2, on which no decision had been made. First-instance costs remain each participant’s own; appeal costs fall on the appellants.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Leave each participant to bear their own procedural costs.
First instance
Case 2-20-14865Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu · 80183173

Apartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the boardApartment association meetings and decisions

How it started · editorial summary

The association accepted invalidity of the board composition decision and nullity of the chair’s election. The court approved an agreement with the city rather than deciding the initial arguments in a separate judgment.

Related prepared acts from this case are also shown.

· Court orderTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-20-14865/38Read act

Separate act page

Withdrawal of a board-election challenge: authority to represent the city

Court order · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu · Narva linn · Sihtasutus Narva Linnaelamu · 80183173 · · 90003404

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant and appellant against the order — Narva linn; Person concerned — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

Narva challenged an association’s board elections. The first-instance court left the application unexamined after its withdrawal, but the appellate court found the person withdrawing it lacked authority and remitted the case to continue.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn challenged resolutions of Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu made on 11.08.2020 about the board’s membership and selection of its chair. A board member of Sihtasutus Narva Linnaelamu later filed a withdrawal in the city’s name. Viru Maakohus consequently left the case unexamined and imposed costs on the applicant. The city appealed, arguing that the person had no authority to represent it. Tartu Ringkonnakohus distinguished the separate legal entities: being the foundation’s statutory representative did not itself confer authority to represent the municipality. The file contained no city power of attorney, necessary confirmation of representative qualifications or subsequent city approval of the withdrawal. The appellate court reversed the order of 09.08.2021 and remitted the case to the same court to continue. It did not decide the substantive validity of the board elections. It also indicated that the authority of another city representative might require further examination. The first-instance court must determine costs and their amount according to the subsequent result.

Outcome of this decision

The city’s appeal against the order was granted. The order leaving the application unexamined was reversed and the case remitted to Viru Maakohus to continue. The board elections’ substantive validity was not decided; costs depend on the further outcome.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Reverse Viru Maakohus’s order of 9 August 2021 and remit the civil case to the same county court to continue the proceedings. […] Grant the appeal against the order.
Appeal
· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-20-14865/49Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

A. Puškini tn 65: court approved agreement with city on board decisions

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn · SA Narva Linnaelamu · Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu · · · 80183173

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant – Narva linn through SA Narva Linnaelamu; interested person – Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu; representatives and persons affected by the elections XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association accepted invalidity of the board composition decision and nullity of the chair’s election. The court approved an agreement with the city rather than deciding the initial arguments in a separate judgment.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn and the apartment association Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 settled their dispute about election of the board at the meeting of 11 August 2020. The court approved the agreement and ended the case, retaining the right of appeal. The city applied through SA Narva Linnaelamu and challenged decisions on board composition and the chair. The ruling does not set out detailed initial arguments or objections. Under the agreement, the association recognised as invalid the decision electing the board’s composition and removing other persons from it. Separately, it recognised the chair’s election as void, meaning without legal effect from adoption. These are agreed terms approved by the court; the ruling contains no independent detailed analysis of the grounds for invalidity. The association undertook to reimburse SA Narva Linnaelamu 25 euros in court fees within 10 days after the ruling becomes final. A further 300 euros in city costs was payable under the agreement no later than 28 February 2022, although the ruling itself is dated 3 March 2022. The source does not report whether that payment was made. Participants bear expenses not covered by the agreement themselves. The court checked the settlement’s permissibility and enforceability and approved it. A partial fee refund from the state budget was left to a separate decision. It rejected the parties’ request to exclude appeals, considering that arrangement impermissible in the procedure used. The agreed obligation to reimburse costs does not establish actual payment.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement on invalidity of the board composition election of 11.08.2020 and nullity of chair XX’s election. The association reimburses 25 euros in court fees within 10 days after finality and 300 euros in city costs by the agreed deadline of 28.02.2022. Terminate proceedings. Leave other costs with the participants and decide the fee refund separately. Refuse exclusion of appeals.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Terminate proceedings in civil case No. 2-20-14865.
First instance