Korteriühistu XX
How it started · editorial summary
The court distinguished general procedures for handling requests from a specific refusal to provide necessary information.
· JudgmentRead actAppeal
Board responses to requests and equal access to information
Korteriühistu XX ·
Participants and roles: XX — claimant and appellant, association member; Association XX — defendant
How it started · editorial summary
The court distinguished general procedures for handling requests from a specific refusal to provide necessary information.
The dispute and the court’s decision
XX challenged association XX’s decisions on parking and handling requests. Following remittal from the Supreme Court, Tartu Ringkonnakohus reconsidered only the requests provision; the parking issue had already been resolved. The court stressed members’ equal entitlement to necessary information and assessment of each request on its substance. The board nevertheless need not provide a written response to every communication unrelated to legitimate management interests. Here, documents had been supplied, maintenance questions explained at a meeting, and authorising the chair to respond alone did not infringe the member’s rights.
Outcome of this decision
The appeal was dismissed. The ultimate rejection of the claim was upheld on revised legal grounds. This does not authorise arbitrary denial of information: an unjustified refusal in a specific instance may be challenged. XX bears the first-instance and appellate costs.
A checked extract in this language is not yet available.