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
2-11-42010

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 19 korteriühistu · 80054978

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

Editorial summary

On the hearing date, the association and OÜ Procedendo agreed on payment of arrears and waiver of other claims, with a specific exception for September 2012 services.

· Order approving a settlementViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-11-42010/27Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Puškini tn 19 and OÜ Procedendo: settlement for 227,82 euros excluding September services

Order approving a settlement · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Puškini tn 19 · OÜ Procedendo · 80054978 · 11549574

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant – KÜ Puškini tn 19; defendant – OÜ Procedendo; claimant’s representative XX; defendant’s representatives XX

Editorial summary

On the hearing date, the association and OÜ Procedendo agreed on payment of arrears and waiver of other claims, with a specific exception for September 2012 services.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Puškini tn 19 claimed arrears from OÜ Procedendo for services related to apartment ownership. At the hearing on 28 September 2012, the parties signed a settlement and asked the court to approve it and terminate proceedings. The order does not contain detailed initial calculations or separate objections from the defendant. The defendant undertook to pay 227,82 euros within two days after the order became final. The agreement covered the services dispute for the period before the date specified in it. Under the agreement, once that payment was made, the association would confirm that it had no other claims and waive potential existing and future claims, while expressly retaining claims for September 2012 services. The agreement therefore does not extinguish obligations for September 2012 services. The parties agreed that they had no mutual claims concerning the proceedings being concluded and would each bear their own litigation costs. They confirmed that they understood the consequences of termination and waived the right to appeal the order. The court found the agreement consistent with their intentions and interests, approved its terms and terminated proceedings. At the association’s request, the court ordered reimbursement of 127,82 euros, half of the 255,64-euro court fee. This is a different amount from the defendant’s payment and is not included in it. The copy bears a finality stamp dated 28 September 2012; the order records the defendant’s obligation to pay but does not itself prove receipt of funds or fulfilment of the condition for waiving the remaining claims.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the settlement and terminate proceedings. OÜ Procedendo is to pay the association 227,82 euros within two days after the order becomes final; after payment the association’s waiver of other claims applies, except for claims for September 2012 services. Each party bears its own costs. Reimburse the association 127,82 euros, half of the court fee; the parties waived an appeal.
2-08-53183

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

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

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.
2-08-63694

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 2a korteriühistu · 80245744

Repairs and shared propertyFaçade, windows and balconiesOrganisation and funding of repairsApartment association bills, payments and debtsBills and justification of chargesDebt claimsApartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeBudget, management plan and ratesLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

Editorial summary

An incorrect allocation method did not invalidate the entire repair decision.

· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-08-63694/26Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Repair contributions and allocation by area

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Korteriühistu Narva Sõbralik · 80245744

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and appellant — Korteriühistu Narva Sõbralik; defendant and respondent on appeal — XX; claimant representative XX

Editorial summary

An incorrect allocation method did not invalidate the entire repair decision.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Korteriühistu Narva Sõbralik (now — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 2a korteriühistu). Korteriühistu Narva Sõbralik claimed earmarked facade and balcony repair contributions and late-payment interest from XX. The defendant disputed equal per-apartment contributions and the decision-making procedure. The county court refused the claim. The circuit court agreed that allocation contravened law and the charter but held only that part void, meaning legally ineffective: area-based allocation replaces it, while the decision to collect funds survives. Discussion of the management plan covered repairs and funding; defective notice was not established. Work and expenditure were proved. The share-based calculation exceeded the claim, so only the amount claimed was allowed and the refusal overturned. XX bears costs in both instances. A 2010 meeting decision provided an additional basis. The judgment does not endorse the original equal allocation or establish later payment.

Outcome of this decision

Refusal overturned and claim allowed within its limits; XX bears costs in both instances.
2-08-53183

KÜ XX · OÜ Analan Auto

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesLate-payment interest and consequences of delayContracts and servicesBuilding servicesWater and seweragePipes, risers and sewerage

Editorial summary

The circuit court set aside dismissal of the maintenance and service-charge claim. The association must prove the costs and their allocation; the case was remitted without an award.

· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-08-53183/43Read actAppeal

Separate act page

An anonymised association and OÜ Analan Auto: dismissal was set aside and the case remitted

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ XX · OÜ Analan Auto · · 10339202

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and appellant — KÜ XX; association’s representative — XX; defendant — OÜ Analan Auto; defendant’s representative — XX

Editorial summary

The circuit court set aside dismissal of the maintenance and service-charge claim. The association must prove the costs and their allocation; the case was remitted without an award.

The dispute and the court’s decision

An association whose name is concealed in the source sought maintenance charges, utility payments and late-payment interest from OÜ Analan Auto. The claim was increased to 29 595 kroons. The association relied on a maintenance contract. The company disputed the services, calculation and interest, and referred to sewer problems. The county court dismissed the claim because the invoices did not establish what was payable or how much. The circuit court set aside the judgment in full and remitted the case; it did not award the amount claimed. A non-residential owner’s obligation to contribute to necessary management costs arises from statute, not solely from a maintenance contract. The association must nevertheless prove the costs’ composition, quantity, price and amount, and equal allocation principles for other owners. The contract and invoices did not themselves establish this. However, an invoice to an owner does not inherently have to satisfy every requirement for an accounting source document. The court directed use of the statutory late-payment rate. Material facts had not been established. The fresh proceedings must clarify the claim and evidence and allow the defendant to respond. The sewer materials were considered irrelevant to deciding this claim; the system is common property. The court did not establish that it was in proper condition or decide a separate damages claim. Costs remained for the county court.

Outcome of this decision

The county court judgment of 18 December 2009 was set aside in full and the case remitted to the same county court. The 29 595 kroons claimed were not awarded by this judgment. Costs were left for the fresh proceedings.
2-09-16075

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 25 korteriühistu · 80180175

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

Editorial summary

After bringing a monetary claim, the association reported an out-of-court settlement; the court treated its request to end the dispute as waiver of the claim.

· Ruling accepting waiver of the claim and terminating proceedingsViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-09-16075/22Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Puškini 25 v OÜ LAHKUS: waiver of the claim accepted following an out-of-court agreement

Ruling accepting waiver of the claim and terminating proceedings · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Korteriühistu Puškini 25 · Osaühing LAHKUS · 80180175 · 10401941

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — Korteriühistu Puškini 25; claimant’s representative XX — statutory representative; defendant — Osaühing LAHKUS

Editorial summary

After bringing a monetary claim, the association reported an out-of-court settlement; the court treated its request to end the dispute as waiver of the claim.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Puškini 25 brought a claim against OÜ LAHKUS for 14 389,34 kroons. The association later reported that the parties had reached a compromise, that it no longer had any claims against the defendant, and asked the court to leave the case without examination. The court explained the consequences of waiving a claim and assessed the application according to its substance. By its order of 15 February 2010, the court specifically accepted waiver of the claim and terminated the proceedings. It did not approve the detailed terms of the out-of-court agreement as a judicial settlement or award the debt claimed. The act contains no specific payment deadlines or confirmation of payment. The defendant did not seek reimbursement of its costs from the association. In view of the absence of further claims and the agreement reached, the court left each party to bear its own costs and set no amount of mutual reimbursement. Although the claimant had asked for the case to be left without examination, the court treated its application as waiver of the claim and terminated the proceedings.

Outcome of this decision

Accept the apartment association Puškini 25’s waiver of its claim against OÜ LAHKUS for 14 389,34 kroons and terminate the proceedings. Send a copy of the order to the parties and leave each party to bear its own costs.