Skip to decisions
Žuk — ANTON и JELENA

Legal archive: reviews of court practice concerning Narva apartment associations

This section contains analytical reviews and editorial summaries of publicly available court decisions concerning relations between apartment owners and apartment associations in Narva. The information has been prepared by the Žuk Kinnisvara team for informational purposes.

We explain complex legal acts in plain language. Our archive is continually updated.

We plan to add reviews of decisions of the Supreme Court of Estonia (Riigikohus) on important issues concerning relations between apartment owners and apartment associations.

Before making important legal decisions, always check the official status and full case text in the state register (Riigi Teataja / e-Toimik).

Subjects and subtopics

A subject describes the dispute; it does not establish a violation.

Additional parameters

Reset all
2-16-119643

Narva linn, Uusküla tn 21 korteriühistu · 80162768

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

Editorial summary

Two defendants did not respond to a personally served claim; the court awarded common joint and several sums by default.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-119643/4Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Uusküla 21: debt and interest awarded jointly and severally against two defendants by default

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KORTERIÜHISTU UUSKÜLA 21 NARVA · 80162768

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — KORTERIÜHISTU UUSKÜLA 21 NARVA; Two defendants XX; Association’s contractual representative XX

Editorial summary

Two defendants did not respond to a personally served claim; the court awarded common joint and several sums by default.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court granted the apartment association UUSKÜLA 21 NARVA’s claim against two defendants XX by default. It awarded utility debt, accrued late-payment interest and further interest of 0,07% per day on principal until the obligation was performed. The defendants are jointly and severally liable: the association may seek the common amount from either, but cannot collect the full amount twice. Both were personally served with the claim documents. No response was received in time. The court applied the default procedure rules. The act contains no detailed account of how the debt arose or of objections from the defendants. A 100 euro state fee was also awarded against the two defendants jointly and severally. The court left the amount of legal costs to a separate ruling after the judgment entered into force; it is not determined in this act. The judgment was declared immediately enforceable without security. This does not confirm that the debt and costs have already been paid.

Outcome of this decision

Award debt, accrued interest, further interest of 0,07% per day on principal and a 100 euro fee against the two defendants XX jointly and severally. Legal costs are to be determined separately. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security.
2-16-17285

Narva linn, Soldina tn 6 korteriühistu · 80175334

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayBills and justification of chargesObligations of multiple owners

Editorial summary

The association did not clarify the defendants’ shares, the method of recovery or the debt calculation after the court requested it.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-17285/3Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Tiimani 6: claim not accepted for proceedings because allocation of debt between co-owners was unclear

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Tiimani 6 · 80175334

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — KÜ Tiimani 6; Two defendants XX — co-owners; Association’s representative XX

Editorial summary

The association did not clarify the defendants’ shares, the method of recovery or the debt calculation after the court requested it.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court refused to accept for proceedings the apartment association Tiimani 6’s claim against two co-owners XX and ordered the application and attachments returned. The association did not clarify the claim and calculation within the time allowed. The court did not decide the existence of the debt on its merits. The association alleged utility debt with late-payment interest totalling 575,69 euros. The court stated that the application did not show the defendants’ ownership shares or how the association sought recovery: a common amount from either of them jointly and severally, or a specified part from each. The composition of the principal, the interest calculation and the charging period were also not explained. The court required the defects to be remedied within 20 days of service of the ruling. The association’s representative received it personally on 6 December 2016, but the association did not respond. The court considered that, without clarification of the basis of liability and allocation of the obligation, the requested result could not be achieved in the manner sought. Costs were left to the association; no reimbursement was ordered for the defendants. The association may separately request a refund of the 125 euro fee paid. This ruling does not itself order that refund.

Outcome of this decision

Refuse to accept for proceedings the claim and return the application and attachments to the association. The association bears the costs; no reimbursement was ordered for the defendants. Refund of the 125 euro fee may be sought by a separate application.
2-16-17284

Narva linn, Soldina tn 6 korteriühistu · 80175334

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

Editorial summary

The owner did not respond to the claim; the court awarded debt and interest by default, separately examining the association’s costs.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-17284/4Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Tiimani 6: debt and interest awarded by default, legal costs refused

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KORTERIÜHISTU TIIMANI 6 · 80175334

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — KORTERIÜHISTU TIIMANI 6; Defendant — owner XX; Association’s statutory representative XX

Editorial summary

The owner did not respond to the claim; the court awarded debt and interest by default, separately examining the association’s costs.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court granted the apartment association TIIMANI 6’s claim against owner XX by default and awarded principal and accrued late-payment interest. A 225 euro state fee was awarded separately. Reimbursement of 100 euros in legal costs was refused. The association alleged that the defendant, as an owner and association member, had partly failed to meet the duty to pay for building maintenance. It brought those claims before the court. The claim documents were duly served on the defendant, who was allowed 14 days for a written response and warned of a possible default judgment. No response was received. The court applied the rule treating the claimant’s factual assertions as admitted by the defendant in this procedure and found the monetary claim legally justified. The state fee was accepted as a necessary cost. The court did not award legal costs for drafting the claim: the file showed the association acting through a statutory rather than contractual representative, and the services claimed were not accepted as reimbursable court costs. The judgment is immediately enforceable but does not confirm actual payment of the debt and costs.

Outcome of this decision

Award the association debt with late-payment interest and a 225 euro state fee against XX. Refuse 100 euros in legal costs. The judgment is immediately enforceable.
2-16-124683

Narva linn, Rakvere tn 89 korteriühistu · 80145528

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayInstalments and payment schedules

Editorial summary

The parties agreed on the debt amount, instalments, current payments and interest on delay; the court approved the agreement.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-124683/3Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Rakvere 89: court approved debt instalments and an obligation to pay current invoices

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Rakvere 89 Narva · 80145528

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — KÜ Rakvere 89 Narva; Debtor under the agreement XX; Association’s representative XX

Editorial summary

The parties agreed on the debt amount, instalments, current payments and interest on delay; the court approved the agreement.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court approved the agreement between the apartment association Rakvere 89 Narva and XX and terminated the case. Under the agreement, the defendant acknowledged the principal debt, late-payment interest and case costs. The terms provide for repayment in instalments. In addition to debt payments, XX undertook to pay the association’s current invoices. Late repayment of principal carries interest of 0,07% per day on the unpaid principal. The agreement was submitted to the court while the payment order proceedings were still underway. Pärnu Maakohus transferred the matter to Viru Maakohus because the parties had agreed on other terms as well as a payment schedule. Viru Maakohus found the agreement admissible and enforceable, approved it and ended the proceedings without deciding the merits of the claim. The court separately left each participant to bear their own costs. It explained that the same dispute against the same defendant on the same grounds cannot be brought again. The act establishes payment terms but does not confirm that payments were made.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement to repay the debt in instalments. XX must also pay current invoices and interest of 0,07% per day if repayment of principal is late. Terminate the proceedings; each party bears its own costs.
2-16-16281

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 18 korteriühistu · 80175147

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsObligations of multiple owners

Editorial summary

Six defendants did not respond to the claim; the court awarded their common joint and several debt by default and decided costs separately.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-16281/3Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kangelaste 18: common debt and fee awarded against six defendants by default

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Korteriühistu Kangelaste 18 Narva · 80175147

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — Korteriühistu Kangelaste 18 Narva; Six defendants XX — joint owners; Association’s statutory representative XX

Editorial summary

Six defendants did not respond to the claim; the court awarded their common joint and several debt by default and decided costs separately.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court granted the apartment association Kangelaste 18 Narva’s claim against six defendants XX by default. Debt and a 400 euro state fee were awarded against them jointly and severally. The common amount can be sought from any debtor, but the full amount cannot be collected twice. The association alleged that the defendants jointly owned an apartment and were not properly paying for building maintenance and utilities. It had not charged late-payment interest on this principal debt. The claim documents were duly served; the court allowed 14 days to respond and warned of a possible default judgment. The defendants did not respond. The court treated the association’s factual assertions as admitted under the default procedure rules and granted the claim. Reimbursement of 43 euros in legal costs was refused: the association acted through its statutory representative and had no contractual representative in the case. Interest was awarded on unpaid court costs from entry into force until payment: the European Central Bank’s main refinancing operations rate applicable for each half-year plus eight percentage points per year. This is a separate consequence of late payment of costs, not interest on utility debt. The judgment is immediately enforceable but does not confirm payment.

Outcome of this decision

Award debt and a 400 euro state fee against the six defendants XX jointly and severally. Refuse 43 euros in legal costs. Unpaid costs carry interest from entry into force at the stated annual ECB rate plus eight percentage points. The judgment is immediately enforceable.
2-16-10339

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

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

Editorial summary

The parties agreed the outstanding debt with late-payment interest and a payment deadline; the court approved the terms and terminated proceedings.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-10339/9Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Narva Unistus: agreement approved for debt payment by 30 June 2017

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ NARVA UNISTUS · 80180884

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – KÜ NARVA UNISTUS; Two defendants XX; Participants’ legal representatives XX

Editorial summary

The parties agreed the outstanding debt with late-payment interest and a payment deadline; the court approved the terms and terminated proceedings.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court approved an agreement between the apartment association NARVA UNISTUS (now – Narva linn, Kosmonaudi tn 9, Linda tn 7 korteriühistu) and two defendants XX, terminating the case about arrears and late-payment interest. The parties agreed the outstanding debt including interest and a payment deadline. The defendants undertook to pay the agreed amount and 100 euros to reimburse half the court fee. The association had claimed building maintenance expenses and late-payment interest. At the hearing on 21 November, the parties agreed the outstanding amount, the payment deadline and litigation costs; the agreement was entered in the minutes and submitted for court approval. The ruling does not set out the detailed initial calculation or separate objections. The court examined the agreement and documents, found no conflict with the law or good morals and approved the agreed terms. It explained that, following termination, the same dispute between the same participants cannot be brought again, and non-performance of the agreement can be referred to a bailiff. In addition to the 100 euros payable by the defendants under the agreement, the association was awarded a refund from the state budget of the other half of the court fee paid, 100 euros. The ruling establishes neither payment by the defendants nor an actual refund from the budget.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement and terminate proceedings. The two defendants XX undertook to pay the agreed debt with late-payment interest and 100 euros in costs within the agreed period. The association is also awarded a further 100-euro court fee refund from the state budget.
2-16-10912

Narva linn, Madise tn 7, Madise tn 9 korteriühistu · 80180772

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayObligations of multiple owners

Editorial summary

The defendants did not attend the hearing; the court examined the reasons for absence and granted the claim by default.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-10912/18Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Grafovi 7,9: court awarded debt and late-payment interest by default after defendants failed to attend

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KORTERIÜHISTU GRAFOVI-7,9 · 80180772

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – KORTERIÜHISTU GRAFOVI-7,9; Two defendants XX – joint owners; Association’s legal representative XX

Editorial summary

The defendants did not attend the hearing; the court examined the reasons for absence and granted the claim by default.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court granted the apartment association GRAFOVI-7,9’s claim against two defendants XX by default. Arrears with late-payment interest and a 175-euro court fee were awarded jointly and severally. This is a shared obligation: the association may seek the awarded amount from either debtor but may not collect the full amount twice. The association alleged that the defendants jointly owned an apartment and had partly failed to pay building maintenance and utility charges. The defendants did not attend the hearing on 4 November 2016, and the association requested a default judgment. The court checked service of the summonses, the warning about non-attendance and the documents provided about its causes. One defendant sought an adjournment, but the court refused: it considered an objective inability to participate unproved. It also did not find the other defendant’s reason for absence sufficient. One defendant supplied no substantive objections to the claim; the other did not respond to it. The court found no obstacle to proceeding by default, treated the association’s factual allegations as admitted and granted the claim as legally well-founded. The judgment is immediately enforceable. It does not confirm actual payment.

Outcome of this decision

Award arrears with late-payment interest and a 175-euro court fee jointly and severally against the two defendants XX. The judgment is immediately enforceable.
2-16-12370

Narva linn, V. Gerassimovi tn 24 korteriühistu · 80152362

Contracts and servicesWorks contracts and designPayment, advance payments and refunds

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

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.
2-16-9388

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 21 korteriühistu · 80228958

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

Editorial summary

The association challenged only the failure to reimburse a 75-euro fee; the court applied the monetary threshold for a costs appeal.

· RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-16-9388/12Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 21: appeal over 75 euros in litigation costs not accepted for proceedings

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Korteriühistu Tallinna mnt 21 Narva · 800228928

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and appellant – Korteriühistu Tallinna mnt 21 Narva; Defendant XX; Association representatives XX

Editorial summary

The association challenged only the failure to reimburse a 75-euro fee; the court applied the monetary threshold for a costs appeal.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Tartu Ringkonnakohus refused to accept the appeal by the apartment association Tallinna mnt 21 Narva against the costs part of a default judgment. The association challenged the failure to reimburse 75 euros in court fees paid. The principal debt was not reviewed in this appeal. The association argued that the county court had incorrectly stated that there were no costs to quantify even though the fee had been paid. It asked for those 75 euros to be awarded against defendant XX. The circuit court explained that the monetary amount of costs may be appealed where the disputed amount exceeds 200 euros. This limitation also applies when costs are quantified in the judgment resolving the case, including a default judgment. The disputed 75 euros did not exceed that threshold, so the appeal was not accepted and was deemed returned. The 50-euro appeal fee had also not been paid. However, the court did not allow time to pay it because the appeal could not in any event be accepted on the stated ground. It separately explained that the costs of challenging the quantification of costs are not reimbursable even if the challenge succeeds. This ruling makes no new award of 75 euros.

Outcome of this decision

Refuse to accept the association’s appeal on costs; the appeal is deemed returned. No new reimbursement of 75 euros is awarded.
2-16-120289

Narva linn, Uusküla tn 5 korteriühistu · 80038301

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

Editorial summary

The association reported full payment before the claim was accepted; the court refused acceptance because judicial protection was no longer needed.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-120289/4Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Uusküla 5: court did not accept the claim for proceedings after a report of payment

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Uusküla 5 · 80038301

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – KÜ Uusküla 5; Person named as debtor XX; Association’s legal representative XX

Editorial summary

The association reported full payment before the claim was accepted; the court refused acceptance because judicial protection was no longer needed.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court refused to accept for proceedings the debt claim by the apartment association Uusküla 5 against XX. Before ordinary civil proceedings began, the association reported full payment of the debt and asked to conclude the case. The court found that the need for judicial protection had ceased. The association had initially applied for a payment order. Following the debtor’s objection, the claim was transferred to Viru Maakohus. That court required a properly formatted claim and payment of an additional court fee within 14 days. Before the claim was accepted, however, the association stated that it no longer wished to begin the hearing process because the debt had been repaid. The result was therefore recorded as refusal to accept the claim for proceedings, rather than termination of already accepted ordinary civil proceedings. The court explained that, following such refusal, the returned application is deemed never to have been filed and the claim never pending before the court. Costs were left with the association; the ruling did not quantify them. It makes no new debt award.

Outcome of this decision

Refuse to accept the association’s claim against XX for proceedings. The association bears costs; no new monetary award is made.
2-16-13519

Narva linn, Joala tn 5 korteriühistu · 80158985

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

Editorial summary

After personal service of the claim, the defendant did not respond; the court awarded debt, interest and part of the costs claimed by default.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-13519/5Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Joala 5: debt and interest awarded by default, claim drafting costs refused

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Joala 5 · 80158985

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — KÜ Joala 5; Defendant — owner XX; Association’s statutory representative XX

Editorial summary

After personal service of the claim, the defendant did not respond; the court awarded debt, interest and part of the costs claimed by default.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court granted the apartment association Joala 5’s claim against owner XX by default for debt, accrued late-payment interest and further interest until the principal obligation was fulfilled. After personal service of the documents, the defendant did not respond within the 14 days allowed. The association had requested a default judgment in advance if no response was submitted. The court found the claim legally justified and applied the rules under which the claimant’s factual assertions are treated as admitted by the defendant in a default procedure. This is not an adversarial examination of objections that the defendant did not submit. Of the costs, a 175 euro state fee was awarded. Reimbursement of 60 euros for drafting the claim was refused: the claim was signed by the association’s statutory representative and there was no contractual representative in the case. The judgment is immediately enforceable; it does not confirm actual payment.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the debt and interest claim by default. Award the 175 euro state fee; refuse 60 euros in claim drafting costs because no contractual representative participated in the proceedings. The judgment is immediately enforceable.
2-15-105517

Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 10 korteriühistu · 80183397

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayBills and justification of chargesPayment accounting and set-offLimitation of claimsObligations of multiple owners

Editorial summary

The court examined limitation and the association’s calculations and dismissed the claim: the older part was time-barred, and the tables did not show debt for the rest.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-105517/55Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Võidu 10: claim dismissed because older demands were time-barred and calculations showed no debt

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Võidu 10 · 80183397

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — KÜ Võidu 10; Two defendants XX; Participants’ representatives XX

Editorial summary

The court examined limitation and the association’s calculations and dismissed the claim: the older part was time-barred, and the tables did not show debt for the rest.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court dismissed the apartment association Võidu 10’s debt and late-payment interest claim against two defendants XX. Limitation was applied to the older part of the claims; for the later period, the court found no debt on the dates examined according to the association’s tables. The association revised its calculation several times. One defendant argued that the principal had been paid, some claims were brought after limitation had expired, and payments exceeded charges during the remaining period. The second submitted no substantive response. The association submitted tables, but not the invoices themselves or information allowing the court to establish who made particular payments and when. The court found that claims for 1 May 2009 to 31 December 2011 had become time-barred before the application was filed in March 2015. The corresponding interest claims became time-barred together with the principal claim. For the later charges, the court examined payments and concluded that the association’s tables showed no debt either on 31 May 2015 or on 30 June 2016. Interest on this part was also found unjustified. The court stated that performance of a joint and several obligation by one debtor releases the others to the corresponding extent. No refund of an alleged overpayment was awarded to the defendants. The association was left to bear its own costs and ordered to bear the defendants’ costs. It was ordered to pay the state 348,24 euros for state legal aid within three months after the judgment entered into force. Actual payment of costs is not confirmed.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss the association’s claim against the two defendants XX. The association bears the costs; award the state 348,24 euros for legal aid, payable within three months after the judgment enters into force. No refund of overpayment to the defendants was ordered.