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
2-15-8056

Narva linn, Rahu tn 16d korteriühistu · 80175363

The apartment association as employerEmployment contract termsTermination of employment contractsPay and compensationContracts and services

Latest prepared act · · № 2-15-8056/57

Editorial summary

The court classified the relationship between the manager and the association as a mandate agreement and left the request to set aside the board decision without examination.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 1 · Unprepared stages: 1
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-15-8056/57Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Rahu 16D: manager’s agreement not treated as employment; challenge to a board decision left without examination

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Korteriühistu RAHU 16D · 80175363

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and appellant XX — manager; Defendant — Korteriühistu RAHU 16D; Association’s representatives XX

Editorial summary

The court classified the relationship between the manager and the association as a mandate agreement and left the request to set aside the board decision without examination.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Tartu Ringkonnakohus upheld dismissal of XX’s employment and monetary claims against the apartment association RAHU 16D, changing the reasons. However, it replaced dismissal on the merits of the request to set aside a board decision with a decision leaving that part of the claim without examination. Formally, the appeal was dismissed. The claimant acted as building manager and considered the relationship employment. The claimant challenged termination, seeking reinstatement and payments. The appeal sought 128 euros in unpaid remuneration, 512 euros for failure to observe the notice period and 2041 euros for enforced absence. The association argued that the parties had entered into a management services agreement, not an employment contract. The court examined the actual working conditions. The manager independently chose how, when and where to perform tasks and organised repairs, contracts and reporting. The agreement contained no terms on working hours, leave or daily supervision. The court therefore classified it as a mandate agreement: independent performance of tasks in the association’s interests. Neither a tax reporting entry nor comments from the board in themselves turned the relationship into employment. The court found termination of the indefinite mandate agreement permissible and saw no basis for applying remedies for unlawful dismissal of an employee. The separate claim for 128 euros for work already performed was also unsubstantiated. The court did not determine the challenge to the board decision on the merits: the manager was not entitled to bring that claim in the capacity chosen. That part of the earlier judgment was set aside and replaced with a procedural decision. The association’s request to obtain additional information was also refused. Costs at both instances were allocated to the claimant; the county court will determine their amount separately. Actual performance has not been established.

Outcome of this decision

Uphold dismissal of the employment and monetary claims with amended reasons. Set aside the earlier judgment regarding the board decision and leave that part of the claim without examination. Dismiss the appeal; XX bears costs at both instances, with the amount to be determined separately.
Not prepared yet

· Case 2-15-8056 · Viru Maakohus · First instance

2-16-107757

Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 4 korteriühistu · 80228651

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

Editorial summary

The short judgment grants the association’s claim and retains security for the claim. The court explained the ten-day procedure for notifying an intention to appeal so that a factual description and reasons can be added.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-107757/27Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Daumani 4: debt and interest awarded, interim protection of the claim retained

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Korteriühistu Daumani 4 · 80228651

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — Korteriühistu Daumani 4; Defendant XX; Parties’ representatives XX

Editorial summary

The short judgment grants the association’s claim and retains security for the claim. The court explained the ten-day procedure for notifying an intention to appeal so that a factual description and reasons can be added.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court granted the apartment association Daumani 4’s claim against XX for debt and late-payment interest. In addition to principal and accrued interest, it awarded further interest of 0,07% per day on unpaid principal until payment in full. The defendant was ordered to bear court costs; the state fee and contractual representation costs found necessary and justified were awarded. Previously imposed measures securing the claim were left unchanged. This act does not disclose their content. The preserved text contains the operative part and appeal procedure without a detailed account of arguments, evidence or reasons. The case was heard under the simplified procedure. The court did not grant permission to appeal and stated that admission of an appeal was possible on the grounds specified in the act of an obvious material error of law, procedure or assessment of evidence. A participant intending to appeal must notify the county court within 10 days of service of the operative part. The judgment is then supplemented with a factual description and reasons, and the 30-day appeal period runs from service of the supplemented full text. This is the procedure explained by the court; supplementation, further review and payment of the awarded sums have not been established.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the association’s claim against XX: award principal, accrued late-payment interest, further interest of 0,07% per day until payment of principal, and court costs. Retain the measures securing the claim. A ten-day deadline is stated for notifying the court of an intention to appeal to obtain a supplemented judgment.
2-16-114467

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 17 korteriühistu · 80070061

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

Editorial summary

The defendant did not respond after service of the documents; the court awarded debt, interest and part of the association’s costs by default.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-114467/5Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kangelaste 17: default award of debt with interest and part of the costs

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Kangelaste 17 · 80070061

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — KÜ Kangelaste 17; Defendant XX; Association’s statutory representative XX

Editorial summary

The defendant did not respond after service of the documents; the court awarded debt, interest and part of the association’s costs by default.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court granted the apartment association Kangelaste 17’s claim against XX for debt and late-payment interest by default and awarded part of the court costs. The documents were served through a person living with the defendant; no written response was received within the 14 days allowed. The court accepted a 200 euro state fee and 0,32 euros in bank charges, a total of 200,32 euros. Reimbursement of 130 euros for legal assistance was refused: documents were submitted by the association’s statutory representative and there was no contractual representative in the proceedings. A further 20 euros in payment order costs was not awarded because the court did not find that such costs had been incurred. The judgment is immediately enforceable. The award of debt and costs does not confirm actual payment.

Outcome of this decision

The debt and interest claim was granted by default. Costs of 200,32 euros were awarded; the additional 130 euros for legal assistance and 20 euros in costs were refused. The judgment is immediately enforceable.
2-16-9388

Korteriühistu Tallinna mnt 21 Narva

Editorial summary

This short judgment concerns enforcement costs and does not establish the subject of the original debt.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-9388/7Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Default judgment awarding enforcement costs

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Korteriühistu Tallinna mnt 21 Narva ·

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Association — claimant; XX — defendant

Editorial summary

This short judgment concerns enforcement costs and does not establish the subject of the original debt.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Korteriühistu Tallinna mnt 21 Narva sought reimbursement from XX of enforcement costs it had paid. The court granted the claim by default because the defendant received the claim personally but did not respond in time. The judgment has no descriptive part or reasons.

Outcome of this decision

Enforcement costs were awarded against XX. The defendant bears procedural costs, but there are no costs to quantify. The default judgment is immediately enforceable; actual enforcement is not established.
2-16-11537

Narva linn, Uusküla tn 1 korteriühistu · 80175825

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsInstalments and payment schedules

Editorial summary

The defendant admitted the claim and requested instalments; the court granted the demands and set monthly payments.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-11537/7Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Uusküla 1: court granted an admitted claim and allowed payments of 400 euros per month

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Uusküla tn 1 KÜ · 80175825

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – Uusküla tn 1 KÜ; Defendant – owner XX; Association’s contractual representative XX

Editorial summary

The defendant admitted the claim and requested instalments; the court granted the demands and set monthly payments.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court granted the apartment association Uusküla tn 1’s claim against owner XX on the basis of admission. In a written response, the defendant admitted the demands and asked for monthly payments; the court granted the request and set the arrangements for performing the judgment. Litigation costs were also awarded against the defendant. The court noted that immediate admission of a claim does not in itself remove liability for costs: in this case, the defendant’s conduct had given reason to go to court. The defendant raised no objections to the costs. This is a judgment based on admission with court-ordered instalments, rather than a default judgment or approval of a settlement. It is immediately enforceable without security. Admission and the payment schedule do not establish actual payment of the debt or costs.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the association’s claim against XX on the basis of admission; order monthly payments until full payment and award litigation costs. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security.
2-16-11476

Narva linn, Uusküla tn 1 korteriühistu · 80175825

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

Editorial summary

The defendant did not respond after personal service of the claim; the court awarded the debt, late-payment interest and costs by default.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-11476/6Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Uusküla 1: debt and late-payment interest awarded by default; association granted refund of excess court fee

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Korteriühistu Uusküla tn 1 · 80175825

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – Korteriühistu Uusküla tn 1; Defendant XX; Association’s contractual representative XX

Editorial summary

The defendant did not respond after personal service of the claim; the court awarded the debt, late-payment interest and costs by default.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court granted the apartment association Uusküla tn 1’s claim against XX for arrears and late-payment interest by default and also awarded litigation costs. The claim had been served personally on the defendant against signature, but no response arrived within the time limit. The brief judgment does not give a detailed debt history, charging period or objections from the defendant. The judgment is immediately enforceable. Separately, the court ordered a refund to the association of 25 euros in overpaid court fees from the state budget. This is repayment of an excess fee to the association, rather than an additional award against the defendant. The judgment does not confirm actual payment of the awarded sums or completion of the refund.

Outcome of this decision

Award the association the debt, late-payment interest and litigation costs against XX. Order a refund to the association of 25 euros in excess court fees from the state budget. The judgment is immediately enforceable.
2-15-126339

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 24 korteriühistu · 80180571

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

Editorial summary

The association waived its claim after reporting payment by the new owner; the court terminated the case and left costs with the association.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-126339/23Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kangelaste 24: case ended after payment by a new owner; costs left with the association

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KORTERIÜHISTU KANGELASTE 24 · 80180571

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – KORTERIÜHISTU KANGELASTE 24; Two defendants XX; Association representative XX; Mentioned payer – the new owner

Editorial summary

The association waived its claim after reporting payment by the new owner; the court terminated the case and left costs with the association.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court accepted the apartment association KANGELASTE 24’s waiver of its claim against two defendants XX and terminated proceedings. The association reported that its demands had been met by the apartment’s new owner, who was not a defendant in this claim. The claim concerned arrears and late-payment interest. The ruling gives no amounts. The claim documents could not be served on the defendants, so the court did not ask for their views on the waiver. It found the waiver permissible and ended the case without a decision on the merits. It explained that the same claim against the same defendants on the same grounds could not be brought again. Costs were left with the association. The court specifically noted that the demands had been met by the new owner, rather than the defendants, so the costs exception for payment by a defendant after filing did not apply. The court identified no costs reimbursable to other participants. The association requested a court fee refund. The court left this for a separate ruling after the present ruling becomes final. No refund was ordered by this ruling itself.

Outcome of this decision

Accept the waiver and terminate proceedings. The association bears costs; no sums are reimbursable to participants. The court fee refund question is to be decided separately after the ruling becomes final.
2-16-10336

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

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

Editorial summary

The settlement sets instalments and default consequences but does not prove later payment.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-10336/6Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Debt instalments under an approved settlement

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KORTERIÜHISTU NARVA UNISTUS · 80180884

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Association — claimant and settling party; XX — defendant and settling party

Editorial summary

The settlement sets instalments and default consequences but does not prove later payment.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KORTERIÜHISTU NARVA UNISTUS (now — Narva linn, Kosmonaudi tn 9, Linda tn 7 korteriühistu). KORTERIÜHISTU NARVA UNISTUS and XX agreed to settle a debt claim. Following a partial payment, XX acknowledged the remaining debt and the agreed share of costs. The settlement provides for three instalments; a delay of even one day on any instalment makes the whole balance immediately due and triggers daily late-payment interest of 0.07% on the unpaid part. The source does not disclose the substantive basis of the original claim.

Outcome of this decision

The court approved the settlement and terminated the proceedings. Costs follow the agreement; each party bears its costs not covered by it. The court reserved the refund issue for a separate order after this order becomes final.
2-14-56990

Narva linn, Soldina tn 4 korteriühistu · 80175156

Contracts and servicesPayment, advance payments and refundsDocuments and informationReporting and review of expenditureApartment association board and managementHandover of documents and affairs

Latest prepared act · · № 2-14-56990/31

Editorial summary

Ending services to save money did not remove the agreed notice period or payment for it.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 1 · Unprepared stages: 1
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-14-56990/31Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Tiimani 4: accounting fees and notice of termination

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ Tiimani 4 · 80175156

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and appellant — accounting service provider XX; defendant — KÜ Tiimani 4

Editorial summary

Ending services to save money did not remove the agreed notice period or payment for it.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Tiimani 4 (now — Narva linn, Soldina tn 4 korteriühistu). Service provider XX sought two months of accounting fees, compensation for shortened notice and late-payment interest from KÜ Tiimani 4. The appellate court reversed the first-instance dismissal and allowed the claim. The agreement was a mandate contract: ongoing accounting is a continuing service rather than production of a distinct result. There was no employment contract between the parties. The association’s notice cited saving money as its reason. Breaches justifying termination without the agreed notice were not proved. Later demands for documents and a contract with a new accountant did not establish grounds for the notice already sent. The association’s alleged losses were not established either. The contract required 60 days’ written notice. The association’s refusal of further services before that period expired did not release it from the duty to pay. The court upheld two months’ fees and the claim for the remaining month, assessing the amount by established monthly practice and comparable services. Payment for services, compensation for the remaining notice period and accrued late-payment interest were awarded. Further late-payment interest until performance was neither sought nor awarded. Costs in both instances were reduced to 375 euros in view of the claim value and ordinary complexity: a 175-euro fee and 200 euros for legal assistance. Translation costs lacked documentary proof. Actual payment of the award was not established.

Outcome of this decision

The first-instance dismissal was reversed; the claim and appeal were allowed. The association must pay for services, the remaining notice period, fixed late-payment interest and reduced costs.
Not prepared yet

· Case 2-14-56990 · Viru Maakohus · First instance

2-16-8765

Narva linn, Linda tn 1 korteriühistu · 80180424

Editorial summary

The agreement was already binding on the parties; the claimant did not clarify the legal basis for a new claim even after an extension of time.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-8765/5Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Linda 1: new claim to perform an already approved agreement refused

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

OÜ Roburink · KÜ Linda 1 · 10611746 · 80180424

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – OÜ Roburink in liquidation; Defendant – KÜ Linda 1

Editorial summary

The agreement was already binding on the parties; the claimant did not clarify the legal basis for a new claim even after an extension of time.

The dispute and the court’s decision

OÜ Roburink, in liquidation, sought an order requiring the apartment association Linda 1 to perform clause 1.2 of an agreement previously approved by the court. The court refused to accept the claim for proceedings and returned the application with its attachments. This ruling did not determine on the merits whether the agreement had been performed or breached. The court noted that the agreement had been approved by a ruling of 6 June 2013 which was final and already binding on the parties. An additional demand for an order to perform the same terms therefore required explanation of an independent legal basis. The claimant was asked to clarify that basis or amend the demand and supply the full new statement of claim. Initially, 14 days were allowed for corrections after service of the ruling of 14 June 2016; it was received on 20 June. At the claimant’s requests, the deadline was extended to 12 August, but neither explanations nor a corrected claim arrived. The court considered the chosen demand to have no prospect of success in that form. Costs were left with the claimant. The court explained the possibility of seeking a court fee refund by a separate application; this ruling ordered no specific refund amount.

Outcome of this decision

Refuse to accept for proceedings OÜ Roburink’s claim seeking an order to perform the agreement; return the application and attachments. The claimant bears costs.
2-16-10334

Narva linn, Soldina tn 2 korteriühistu · 80180921

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

Editorial summary

The court refused to accept the claim for proceedings because the person named as defendant had died; the debt was not examined on its merits.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-10334/2Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Tiimani 2: debt claim against a deceased person refused

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Tiimani 2 · 80180921

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant – KÜ Tiimani 2; Person named as defendant – XX

Editorial summary

The court refused to accept the claim for proceedings because the person named as defendant had died; the debt was not examined on its merits.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Tiimani 2 brought a debt claim against XX. After checking the population register, the court established that the person named as defendant had died and could not participate in civil proceedings. The court refused to accept the claim for proceedings; the application and attachments are to be returned to the association. The court explained that a deceased person lacks legal capacity: the ability to have rights and obligations as a participant in proceedings. Hearing the claim against that person therefore could not produce the requested result. The existence and amount of the utility debt were not assessed on their merits. The ruling explained that a claim arising from the owner’s obligations may be directed against the heirs. If the heirs are unknown, an interested person may, under the prescribed conditions, request measures to preserve the estate, including appointment of an administrator to safeguard the assets. In this case, no heirs were identified, no administrator was appointed and no award was made against them. Costs were left with the association. An application returned following refusal to accept it is deemed never to have been filed or pending as a civil claim.

Outcome of this decision

Refuse to accept the association’s claim for proceedings. Return the application and attachments to the claimant; the association bears costs.
2-02-74

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu · 80069939

The apartment association as employerTermination of employment contractsPay and compensation

Latest prepared act · · № 2-02-74/117

Editorial summary

The court increased compensation while maintaining a reduction for the duty to mitigate loss.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 2 · Unprepared stages: 3
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-02-74/117Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Tallinna 32: compensation for unlawful dismissal

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Korteriühistu Tallinna 32 · 80069939

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and appellant — employee XX; defendant — Korteriühistu Tallinna 32

Editorial summary

The court increased compensation while maintaining a reduction for the duty to mitigate loss.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Korteriühistu Tallinna 32 (now — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu). Employee XX appealed the amount of compensation payable by Korteriühistu Tallinna 32 for enforced absence from work. Unlawful dismissal and reinstatement had already been established; this decision concerned only the amount of compensation. The court confirmed that compensation could be reduced by reference to the duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate loss. However, the first-instance court had not adequately justified limiting compensation to one month’s pay. The compensation was increased; the reasoning used eight months’ average earnings. The claim for the whole period sought was otherwise refused. The earlier reinstatement judgment was immediately enforceable: work should have resumed on the day after the first-instance judgment, rather than after the cassation stage ended. This affected the compensable period. The court applied employment legislation in force before 1 July 2009. Each party bears its costs in both instances; actual payment was not established.

Outcome of this decision

Compensation was increased; the claim and appeal were allowed in part, with each party bearing its costs.
· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-02-74/110Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Compensation following unlawful dismissal

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Korteriühistu Tallinna 32 · 80069939

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: XX — claimant, employee; Association — defendant, employer

Editorial summary

The remitted proceedings concerned compensation, rather than reconsideration of whether the dismissal was lawful.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Korteriühistu Tallinna 32 (now — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu). On remittal, XX sought compensation from Korteriühistu Tallinna 32 for enforced absence from work. Unlawful dismissal and reinstatement had already been resolved. The court accepted the loss of earnings but limited compensation to one month’s average earnings on grounds of good faith and proportionality. Later, on 8 July 2016, Tartu Ringkonnakohus increased compensation while leaving the allocation of costs unchanged. Applying the historical version of employment law, the appellate court emphasised immediate compliance with reinstatement and reasonable steps to mitigate loss.

Outcome of this decision

The claim was initially granted in part, awarding compensation equal to one month’s average earnings, with each party bearing its own costs. On 8 July 2016, Tartu Ringkonnakohus set the judgment aside only as to the amount of compensation and increased it. Each party continued to bear its own first-instance and appeal costs.
Not prepared yet

· Case 2-02-74 · Riigikohus · Cassation

Not prepared yet

· Case 2-02-74 · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Not prepared yet

· Case 2-02-74 · Viru Maakohus · First instance