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 2-16-109666Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Juuli tn 7 korteriühistu · 80145988

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayLimitation of claimsWater and sewerageMeters and readingsCalculation of water charges

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought additional water debt of a former owner from the purchaser after auction. The court refused recovery on good-faith grounds and inadequate proof of the calculation; it did not establish limitation.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-109666/60Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Old water debt discovered after auction: claim against the purchaser dismissed

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, 26. juuli tn 7 korteriühistu · 80145988

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — Narva linn, 26. juuli tn 7 korteriühistu; Defendant, purchaser of the property — XX; Third party supporting the defendant, former owner — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought additional water debt of a former owner from the purchaser after auction. The court refused recovery on good-faith grounds and inadequate proof of the calculation; it did not establish limitation.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, 26. juuli tn 7 korteriühistu, formerly KORTERIÜHISTU 26. JUULI 7 NARVA, sought a former owner’s debt and late-payment interest from purchaser XX. A meter check after the auction revealed differences from previously reported water readings. The purchaser objected that the debt disclosed at purchase had been paid and that the association had not notified the bailiff of the additional claim beforehand. Applying the law in force when the obligations arose, the court accepted the good-faith objection. It found that the association had not properly checked the data over a prolonged period or explained why the extra debt was not identified before sale. On these facts, later claiming it from this purchaser was inconsistent conduct. The documents also did not allow verification of monthly charges, payments and late-payment interest. The court could not therefore establish when obligations became due or decide the limitation defence. Dismissal was not based on a finding that the whole claim was time-barred. Debt and late-payment interest were refused. The association must bear its own, the defendant’s and the third party’s costs, with amounts determined separately.

Outcome of this decision

The additional debt and late-payment interest claim was dismissed. The court found recovery from this purchaser contrary to good faith and the calculation insufficiently proved; limitation was not established. The association bears participants’ costs as ordered, with their amount fixed separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Dismiss the debt claim brought by Narva linn, 26. juuli tn 7 korteriühistu (former name: KORTERIÜHISTU 26. JUULI 7 NARVA) against XX.
First instance
Case 2-17-10653Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 33 korteriühistu · 80082986

Water and seweragePipes, risers and sewerageRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairsContracts and servicesWorks contracts and designApartment association meetings and decisions

How it started · editorial summary

The circuit court examined the reopening application instead of leaving it unexamined, but found no grounds to reopen the case.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-10653/23Read act

Separate act page

Non-attendance: an association dispute left unexamined

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 33 korteriühistu · 80082986

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — XX; Defendant — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 33 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

After XX did not attend, the claim against the association was left unexamined. The appellate court later changed only the ruling on restoration: it examined and refused that request without deciding the meeting-resolution dispute on its merits.

The dispute and the court’s decision

XX sued Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 33 korteriühistu, formerly Korteriühistu Punane Maja, to invalidate meeting resolutions of 10.05.2017. The preserved subsequent order states that the disputed resolutions concerned a contract to replace water pipes, requiring owners to provide telephone numbers, and a contract for legal services. After XX and their representative did not attend, the court granted the association’s request to leave the claim unexamined. XX objected that the representative had not received a separate summons and the case could not be disposed of this way. The court found that XX had personally received the summons before notifying a new representative. Documents, including the summons, were then made available to the representative electronically. The court considered notice proper. The hearing record confirmed the association’s request, so the court had not acted of its own initiative. No sufficient excuse for absence or request to hear the case without XX was established. The objection was rejected. The restoration request was left unexamined as filed before a written order and its service. The claim itself was also left unexamined, not dismissed on its merits. Costs were imposed on XX, to be fixed separately. Later, on 3 September 2018, Tartu Ringkonnakohus changed only the ruling on the request to restore proceedings: the request had to be examined, but was refused. The claim remained unexamined, the other parts of the order were upheld, and XX bears the appeal costs.

Outcome of this decision

Initially, the procedural objection was refused and the restoration request and claim were left unexamined. On 3 September 2018, Tartu Ringkonnakohus changed only the restoration ruling: the request was examined but refused. The other parts of the order, including leaving the claim unexamined, were upheld. XX bears appeal costs; the substantive validity of the meeting resolutions was not decided.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Leave XX’s application of 17 May 2018 to restore proceedings unexamined.
First instance
· RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-17-10653/27Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 33: reopening application examined, but case not reopened

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 33 korteriühistu · 80082986

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and appellant — XX; Defendant — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 33 korteriühistu (also called Korteriühistu Punane Maja)

How it started · editorial summary

The circuit court examined the reopening application instead of leaving it unexamined, but found no grounds to reopen the case.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Tartu Ringkonnakohus changed the procedural outcome but did not reopen XX’s case against Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 33 korteriühistu. Instead of leaving the reopening application unexamined, it examined and rejected it. The main claim remained unexamined. The claimant challenged meeting decisions of 10 May 2017 on replacing water pipes using an unnamed company, owners providing telephone numbers, and a contract with a lawyer. The court initially granted the claim by default but reopened proceedings after the association applied to set aside the default judgment (kaja). The claimant and representative then failed to attend the hearing on 15 May 2018. At the association’s request, the court left the claim unexamined. The claimant requested reopening, arguing that the representative had not been sent a separate summons and therefore did not know about the hearing. The claimant also denied that the association had requested leaving the claim unexamined. The association opposed the appeal, arguing among other things that it was late. The circuit court found that the summons was sent to the claimant before the court was notified of the representative. The claimant received it personally, and on the day the representative notified the court of their authority, the representative obtained electronic access to all materials, including the summons. In those circumstances, the court did not have to send the same summons again. The association’s request to leave the claim unexamined was recorded in the minutes. The claimant did not substantiate a valid reason for absence or an inability to report it in time. However, the court found it wrong to refuse to examine the reopening application merely because it had been filed before the ruling was put in writing: the participant already knew the decision announced at the hearing. It remedied the defect itself, examined the application and refused reopening. The remainder was upheld and appeal costs allocated to the claimant; the county court will determine the amount separately. The meeting decisions’ validity was not determined on the merits by this ruling.

Outcome of this decision

Set aside the ruling of 25 May 2018 only insofar as it left the reopening application unexamined. Issue a new ruling in that part refusing reopening. Uphold the remainder; XX bears appeal costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. Uphold the county court’s ruling in all other respects.
Appeal
Case 2-17-11161Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Soldina tn 10 korteriühistu · 80170667

Water and seweragePipes, risers and sewerageAccess for inspection and repair

How it started · editorial summary

XX must remove wall panels to allow completion of pipe replacement; the association provided for compensation for possible damage from necessary work.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-11161/16Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Tiimani 10: court approved removal of panels to access water pipes

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KORTERIÜHISTU TIIMANI 10 · 80170667

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – KORTERIÜHISTU TIIMANI 10; Defendant – XX

How it started · editorial summary

XX must remove wall panels to allow completion of pipe replacement; the association provided for compensation for possible damage from necessary work.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court approved the settlement between KORTERIÜHISTU TIIMANI 10 and XX and terminated the case concerning access to water pipes. XX undertook to remove wall panels within ten days after the ruling becomes final so that the association could complete pipe replacement in the section of the system specified in the agreement. The association had sought a court order securing that access. The ruling does not set out the initial objections or reasons for the dispute in detail. On 11 January 2018, the parties submitted agreed terms for approval. The court checked their permissibility and approved the agreement. XX bears the costs of removing the panels and other expenses of providing access to the system. The association, for its part, guaranteed compensation for possible damage during necessary pipe replacement work under the Apartment Ownership and Apartment Associations Act provision cited in the agreement. This ruling does not determine the amount of possible damage. XX must also pay the association 362,50 euros in litigation costs by 31 January 2018: 150 euros, half the court fee, and 212,50 euros, half the legal expenses. Each participant bears its other costs. The court ordered a further 150 euros in court fees refunded to the association from the state budget after the ruling becomes final. It explained the possibility of enforcing the agreement, but this ruling does not confirm actual completion of the works or payments.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement: XX removes panels to provide water-pipe access within ten days after the ruling becomes final and bears access costs. The association guarantees the agreed compensation for possible damage from necessary work. XX pays the association 362,50 euros in costs by 31 January 2018. Terminate the case; each bears its other costs, and a further 150 euros in court fees is refunded to the association from the state budget after finality.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
III. The parties shall bear their own litigation costs not specified in the settlement.
First instance
Case 2-16-16692Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 25, Tallinna mnt 27 korteriühistu · 80162159

Water and sewerageMeters and readingsCalculation of water chargesApartment association bills, payments and debtsBills and justification of chargesLate-payment interest and consequences of delayPayment accounting and set-offLimitation of claims

How it started · editorial summary

The owner challenged 53,16 euros as interest, but the court found that interest paid and instead identified a principal balance resulting from the order in which payments were applied.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-16692/16Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 25/27: owner’s requests for a finding of no debt and limitation rejected

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Tallinna mnt 25/27 · 80162159

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — owner XX; Defendant — KÜ Tallinna mnt 25/27

How it started · editorial summary

The owner challenged 53,16 euros as interest, but the court found that interest paid and instead identified a principal balance resulting from the order in which payments were applied.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court dismissed XX’s claim against KÜ Tallinna mnt 25/27: it did not declare that the 53,16 euro debt was absent or grant the alternative request to establish expiry of limitation. This decides the owner’s claim; it is not a new monetary award to the association. The dispute began with cold water charges. The owner believed payment should follow the readings after a verified meter was installed. The association continued charging under the earlier standard and agreed to recalculate in May 2012. XX considered that there was then no basis for interest; the limitation period for old claims had also expired. The association objected that the owner continued reducing various invoices unilaterally after recalculation. Payments were applied first to accrued late-payment interest and then to principal. The balance therefore extended beyond the earlier water dispute. The court examined invoices and a summary calculation and agreed with the association. The owner had not challenged the meeting decision on standard water charges, which remained binding until amended. Unilaterally reducing invoices caused payment delays for which the association could seek interest. The court also found it lawful to apply payments first to interest and then to principal. It concluded that the disputed interest had already been paid in that way, while 53,16 euros in maintenance costs remained unpaid. It rejected the argument that refusing to pay interest allowed the owner to change this order. It also found no justification for reducing or refunding interest already paid. The limitation request was rejected: the court proceeded from the relevant earlier obligations having already been performed through payments, making limitation inapplicable to them. Costs were allocated to XX; their amount will be determined separately after the judgment enters into force.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss XX’s request for a declaration of no debt and the alternative limitation request. Leave the claimant’s own costs and the association’s costs to the claimant; their amount will be determined separately after entry into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
5. The court shall determine the monetary amount of procedural costs by a separate ruling after the judgment enters into force.
First instance
Case 2-14-56170Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 7 korteriühistu · 80183693

Water and seweragePipes, risers and sewerageHeatingTemperature and heating qualityRepairs and shared propertyAlterations to layouts and shared propertyDamage and insurance

How it started · editorial summary

Later termination of representation did not change the appeal deadline.

Related prepared acts from this case are also shown.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-14-56170/58Read act

Separate act page

Limitation of a claim to restore a hot-water return pipe

Judgment · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

KÜ Pähklimäe 7/11 · 80183693

Entry into force has not been reverified

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

How it started · editorial summary

The outcome rests on limitation rather than a merits decision that removing the pipe was lawful.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Pähklimäe 7/11 (now — Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 7 korteriühistu). XX sought a declaration that removal of a pipe was unlawful and an order requiring KÜ Pähklimäe 7/11 to restore it. As clarified, the claim concerned a hot-water return pipe rather than a heating pipe. XX linked the 2008 works to a fall in indoor temperature noticed in January 2009. On the association’s objection, the court applied a three-year limitation period from knowledge of the damage and responsible party. The claim filed in August 2014 was time-barred, with no interruption or suspension established.

Outcome of this decision

The claim was dismissed as time-barred; no restoration was ordered. This did not decide that the reconstruction was lawful on the merits. XX bears costs, with their amount and recovery for the state reserved for separate orders.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Dismiss the claim.
First instance
· Court orderTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-14-56170/70Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Appeal period after service on a representative

Court order · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ Pähklimäe 7/11 · 80183693

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and appellant — XX; defendant — KÜ Pähklimäe 7/11

How it started · editorial summary

Later termination of representation did not change the appeal deadline.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Pähklimäe 7/11 (now — Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 7 korteriühistu). XX appealed the decision of 13 November 2015 concerning damages against KÜ Pähklimäe 7/11. The circuit court refused to admit the appeal as late. The decision was served on an authorised representative on 16 November; time began the following day and expired at 24:00 on 16 December, at the end of that day, while the appeal arrived on 17 December. Subsequent termination of the representative’s authority did not alter the deadline. The appeal was returned and deemed not filed. No deadline was set to pay the missing fee because refusal of admission would require its refund. The damages claim was not decided on its merits; the type and cause of damage are not disclosed.

Outcome of this decision

Appeal refused admission and returned as out of time.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Refuse to admit the appeal of XX […]
Appeal
Case 2-14-311Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 45a korteriühistu · 80250416

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesPayment accounting and set-offLate-payment interest and consequences of delayWater and sewerageCalculation of water chargesRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairsBasement, stairwell and shared rooms

How it started · editorial summary

The appeal court found sufficient evidence of the whole debt.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-311/25Read act

Separate act page

Proof of building charges and set-off for courtyard road expenses

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Puškini 45A Korteriühistu · Täisühing MAŠUK · 80250416 · 10444548

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Association — claimant; Täisühing MAŠUK — defendant, non-residential unit owner

How it started · editorial summary

Initially, part of the charges and the amount of the proposed set-off were not proved. The later appeal assessed the principal-debt evidence differently and awarded the full principal; the set-off was not reconsidered.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Puškini 45A Korteriühistu (now — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 45a korteriühistu). Puškini 45A Korteriühistu sought 419.83 euros in principal and 6.34 euros in late-payment interest from Täisühing MAŠUK. The company admitted 257.26 euros, disputed water circulation charges and other items, and sought to set off 3 466.54 euros spent on a courtyard road. The court found invoices insufficient to prove all costs and their allocation. It accepted that the road works were necessary and that set-off was possible in principle, but the amount was supported only by the defendant’s calculation rather than cost documents. Later, on 16 October 2015, Tartu Ringkonnakohus reversed refusal of the remaining 162.57 euros in principal: total principal awarded became 419.83 euros instead of 257.26 euros. Täisühing MAŠUK bears costs in both instances. Refusal of the set-off was not appealed or reviewed.

Outcome of this decision

Initially, the admitted principal of 257.26 euros was awarded, the remaining claim and set-off were refused, and each party bore its own costs. On 16 October 2015, Tartu Ringkonnakohus reversed refusal of the remaining 162.57 euros in principal: total principal awarded became 419.83 euros instead of 257.26 euros. Täisühing MAŠUK bears all costs in both instances. Refusal of the set-off was not appealed or reviewed; this change did not award additional late-payment interest.

A checked extract in this language is not yet available.

First instance
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-14-311/35Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Repair and water-circulation charges

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Puškini 45A Korteriühistu · Täisühing Mašuk · 80250416 · 10444548

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and appellant — Puškini 45A Korteriühistu; defendant — Täisühing Mašuk

How it started · editorial summary

The appeal court found sufficient evidence of the whole debt.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Puškini 45A Korteriühistu (now — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 45a korteriühistu). Puškini 45A Korteriühistu claimed management charges from Täisühing Mašuk. The company disputed water-circulation, stairwell-repair and paving charges, relying on a separate entrance, and sought to offset courtyard-road costs. The county court awarded the admitted 257.26 euros, refusing the remainder and the set-off. The association appealed the refusal of 162.57 euros and costs; refusal of set-off was not reviewed. The circuit court considered meeting decisions, repair documents and the summer water-circulation methodology sufficient. A separate entrance did not remove common-cost obligations. The appeal succeeded: the total debt is 419.83 euros, including the earlier award. Costs in both instances were imposed on the company without fixing their monetary amount in this judgment.

Outcome of this decision

Appeal allowed; total debt 419.83 euros and costs in both instances borne by the company.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. Allow the appeal.
Appeal
Case 2-14-7482Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kosmonaudi tn 9, Linda tn 7 korteriühistu · 80180884

Water and sewerageAllocation of water consumption and discrepanciesCalculation of water chargesMeters and readingsApartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

How it started · editorial summary

The apartment association NARVA UNISTUS did not prove grounds for allocating additional water costs to one owner. All monetary claims against defendant XX were dismissed.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-7482/51Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Court refused recovery of charges for unaccounted-for water: the charge was not proved

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KORTERIÜHISTU NARVA UNISTUS · 80180884

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant KORTERIÜHISTU NARVA UNISTUS — sought debt and late-payment interest.; Defendant XX — challenged the additional water charge.

How it started · editorial summary

The apartment association NARVA UNISTUS did not prove grounds for allocating additional water costs to one owner. All monetary claims against defendant XX were dismissed.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The association linked the debt to a meeting decision of 29 April 2013 charging one owner 300 euros for alleged unaccounted-for water consumption. It claimed that faulty plumbing allowed water to drip without being recorded by the meter. The defendant denied these allegations and challenged both the inspection reports and the calculation. The initial claim sought 398,27 euros in debt, 51,67 euros in late-payment interest and further interest of 0,07% per day. At the hearing, the association sought 297,95 euros in principal and 130,03 euros in interest. The court found that the disputed balance related to the additional water charge, while the defendant had paid the other charges, which the claimant did not dispute. To recover the money, the association had to prove the total water costs and the basis for allocating them among owners. Invoices and an approved report alone were insufficient. The total costs and allocation data were not submitted to the court. Nor did the meeting minutes explain why the 300 euros was charged only to the defendant. The court regarded the theory of collecting water drop by drop as speculative: the volume of such consumption had not been proved. In its reasons, the court discussed the meeting decision’s conflict with the rules on allocating costs, but then stated that it could not establish the decision’s nullity — absence of legal effect from the time of adoption — because the defendant had not brought a separate claim within the time limit identified by the court. The operative part does not set aside the meeting decision: it dismisses all recovery claims. Costs were allocated to the association. The court identified no costs reimbursable to the defendant and therefore awarded no specific sum to the defendant. The judgment names the association as the apartment association NARVA UNISTUS (now — Narva linn, Kosmonaudi tn 9, Linda tn 7 korteriühistu).

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss all claims by the apartment association NARVA UNISTUS against defendant XX. Leave costs to the association; there are no costs reimbursable to the defendant.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. There are no procedural costs reimbursable to XX.
First instance
Case 2-14-7448Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 17 korteriühistu · 80054102

Damage and insuranceLeaks and floodingCause and proof of damageAmount of compensationInsurance payment and insurer’s claimWater and seweragePipes, risers and sewerage

How it started · editorial summary

The court granted Salva Kindlustuse AS’s claim against the apartment association DAUMANI 17, awarding 2 213,90 euros for insurance compensation paid and 200 euros in court fees.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-7448/7Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Association ordered to pay insurer 2 213,90 euros for damage from a shared riser

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Salva Kindlustuse AS · DAUMANI 17 KORTERIÜHISTU · 10284984 · 80054102

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant Salva Kindlustuse AS – paid the insurance compensation.; Defendant DAUMANI 17 KORTERIÜHISTU – found liable for the damage.; Owner XX – recipient of the insurance payment, not named as a party to the claim.

How it started · editorial summary

The court granted Salva Kindlustuse AS’s claim against the apartment association DAUMANI 17, awarding 2 213,90 euros for insurance compensation paid and 200 euros in court fees.

The dispute and the court’s decision

On 19 November 2012, a hot-water system failure damaged the interior finishes of an insured apartment. The insurer paid owner XX 2 213,90 euros and sought that sum from the association, relying on its duty to maintain the shared system. The parties did not dispute the incident or the insurance payment. The association objected that the insurer had been notified late, the repair amount needed expert assessment, the works did not match the damage, and the cause of the pipe rupture had not been proved. It considered the failure accidental and denied liability. The court linked liability to the association’s duty to keep shared building systems in working order and noted that the owner’s claim had passed to the insurer to the extent of the insurance payment. The association knew about the incident and damage, including through the certificate it had issued on 21 November 2012. The late-notification objection was rejected: the cited provision allowed the insurer to reduce or refuse payment, but did not require refusal. The law did not require damage to be assessed exclusively by an expert opinion. The association had not specified which works it disputed or on what grounds. The court placed on it the burden of proving circumstances that could exclude liability for the system’s condition. The claim was granted in full. In addition to 2 213,90 euros, the court awarded 200 euros in court fees and imposed all costs on the association. This is an award to the insurer; the judgment does not establish actual payment.

Outcome of this decision

Order the apartment association DAUMANI 17 to pay Salva Kindlustuse AS 2 213,90 euros to reimburse the insurance payment and 200 euros in court fees. All costs are borne by the defendant.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. The defendant shall bear all litigation costs.
First instance
Case 2-08-53183Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 10 korteriühistu · 80038614

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesWater and sewerageCalculation of water chargesHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesRepairs and shared propertyRoof and atticOrganisation and funding of repairs

How it started · editorial summary

On rehearing, the company’s management-charge debt was proved.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-08-53183/57Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Management charges of a non-residential owner

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Puškini 10 · OÜ Analan Auto · 80038614 · 10339202

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant on rehearing — KÜ Puškini 10; defendant and non-residential owner — OÜ Analan Auto; claimant representative XX; claimant adviser XX; defendant representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

On rehearing, the company’s management-charge debt was proved.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Puškini 10 (now — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 10 korteriühistu). KÜ Puškini 10 claimed management and utility charges from OÜ Analan Auto. On 14 May 2010 Tartu Ringkonnakohus overturned the initial refusal of 18 December 2009 and remitted the case to establish the amount of costs. On rehearing, the court examined the charter, tariff and roof-repair decisions, corrected bills and a consolidated calculation. The company disputed the basis of charges and treated its payments as water payments. The court affirmed the non-residential owner’s common-cost obligations, found the claim proved and found the alleged water payments unsupported by the required evidence. The claim was allowed for 3,114.73* euros. The new reasoning states that no late-payment interest was claimed. Costs were imposed on the company without fixing their amount separately.

Outcome of this decision

3,114.73* euros awarded; company bears costs, whose amount was not separately fixed.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Leave court costs with the defendant.
First instance