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
2-14-62071

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 19 korteriühistu · 80054978

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

Editorial summary

After the association withdrew part of its late-payment interest claim, the court terminated that part, awarded principal and ordered continuing late-payment interest.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-62071/27Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Puškini 19: withdrawal of part of the late-payment interest claim and recovery of principal

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Puškini tn üheksateist KÜ · 80054978

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — Puškini tn üheksateist KÜ; Defendant — XX

Editorial summary

After the association withdrew part of its late-payment interest claim, the court terminated that part, awarded principal and ordered continuing late-payment interest.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Puškini tn üheksateist KÜ (now — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 19 korteriühistu) brought a management-cost claim against XX. The claimant withdrew claims for previously accrued late-payment interest and late-payment interest for the following period up to the judgment date; the court terminated that part of the proceedings. This was termination following withdrawal, not dismissal after a merits assessment. The remaining claim was granted: management-cost principal and late-payment interest of 0.07% per day on unpaid principal from 08.10.2015 until full payment were awarded. All procedural costs were imposed on XX; the association was awarded 1063 euros in costs. Actual performance is not established. The case was decided in simplified proceedings. The court did not grant permission to appeal, but explained that an appeal may be admitted for clear and material errors of law, procedure or assessment of evidence. An intention to appeal a judgment lacking a descriptive section and reasoning must be notified in writing to Viru Maakohus within 10 days after service of the operative part. The court would then supplement the judgment, with the 30-day appeal period starting upon service of the full supplementary judgment. No such supplementary act is established by this source.

Outcome of this decision

Proceedings on the withdrawn late-payment interest claims were terminated. Management-cost principal was awarded, with late-payment interest of 0.07% per day on its unpaid balance from 08.10.2015 until payment. Costs of 1063 euros were awarded. An appeal is not unconditionally excluded, but the court did not grant permission.
2-15-108744

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 45 korteriühistu · 80197258

Editorial summary

After the monetary demand was transferred from payment order proceedings, the association did not provide the proper grounds for the claim required by the court.

· Ruling refusing to accept a claim for proceedingsViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-108744/4Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Puškini 45: claim refused after no grounds were supplied for a demand transferred from payment order proceedings

Ruling refusing to accept a claim for proceedings · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Korteriühistu Puškini 45 · 80197258

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant – Korteriühistu Puškini 45; claimant’s legal representative XX; defendant XX – person addressed by the original monetary demand

Editorial summary

After the monetary demand was transferred from payment order proceedings, the association did not provide the proper grounds for the claim required by the court.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The monetary claim by the apartment association Puškini 45 against defendant XX was transferred from payment order proceedings at Pärnu Maakohus to Viru Maakohus to continue as an ordinary civil claim. The court required a properly formatted and reasoned statement of claim, with an additional court fee if necessary. The letter was served on the association on 15 July 2015. The association did not submit a proper statement within the time limit. By a ruling of 17 September 2015, the court refused to accept the claim for proceedings and imposed costs on the association. The ruling does not examine the origin or amount of the debt and awards no money against the defendant. The returned application is deemed never to have been filed or pending. The court did not decide issues of payment, extinction of the monetary claim or its merits; there is no separate finding on the amount of unpaid court fees.

Outcome of this decision

Refuse to accept for proceedings the monetary claim by the apartment association Puškini 45 against XX. The association bears costs; send the ruling to its representative. The debt dispute was not decided on its merits.
2-13-54820

Narva linn, Energia tn 5 korteriühistu · 80250432

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

Latest prepared act · · № 2-13-54820/46

Editorial summary

The appeal settlement replaced the earlier debt judgment: the parties relinquished their mutual claims.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 1 · Unprepared stages: 1
· Court orderTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-13-54820/46Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Energia 5: appeal settlement and setting aside the earlier judgment

Court order · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ Narva Energia 5 · 80250432

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Two appellants, first-instance defendants — XX; Respondent, first-instance claimant — KÜ Narva Energia 5

Editorial summary

The appeal settlement replaced the earlier debt judgment: the parties relinquished their mutual claims.

The dispute and the court’s decision

In the debt case brought by KÜ Narva Energia 5 (now — Narva linn, Energia tn 5 korteriühistu) against two persons XX, the first-instance court granted the claim on 30.07.2014. The defendants appealed, and the participants subsequently submitted a settlement. Tartu Ringkonnakohus approved it, set aside the earlier judgment and terminated proceedings. Under the approved terms, the association withdraws its claim; the association and both persons XX confirm that they have no mutual property claims or debt claims when entering into the settlement. Each party bears its own costs. This settles the claims rather than establishing payment of the amount previously awarded. The court excluded procedural requests and declarations from the approved terms, including requests for state-fee refunds and waiver of an appeal. This did not cancel the waiver: the court explained that such disposal of a procedural right is effective without separate approval. The act states that no interlocutory appeal to Riigikohus is permitted. State-fee matters were decided separately under the law: the association receives no refund of half the first-instance state fee; the defendants were released from the remaining fee obligation, but no monetary refund was awarded to them. This act makes no new debt award.

Outcome of this decision

The settlement was approved, the judgment of Viru Maakohus of 30.07.2014 set aside and proceedings terminated. The participants confirmed no mutual property or debt claims and bear their own costs. The association was refused a refund of half the first-instance fee; the defendants were released from the remaining fee. No interlocutory appeal to Riigikohus is permitted.
Not prepared yet

· Case 2-13-54820 · Viru Maakohus · First instance

2-15-3269

Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 33 korteriühistu · 80175469

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

Editorial summary

The court awarded the debt by default because no response was submitted within the additional period either.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-3269/22Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kreenholmi 33: default judgment after an additional response period

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ KREENHOLMI 33 · 80175469

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — KÜ KREENHOLMI 33; Defendant — XX

Editorial summary

The court awarded the debt by default because no response was submitted within the additional period either.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ KREENHOLMI 33 (now — Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 33 korteriühistu) claimed debt and late-payment interest from XX. The claim had been served and the court allowed an additional period for a proper response. No response arrived within that period, and the court granted the claim by default. The judgment contains no descriptive section or reasoning; the composition of service charges is not disclosed. Principal, accrued late-payment interest and 260 euros in procedural costs were awarded. All costs were imposed on XX. No continuing late-payment interest was ordered. The judgment is immediately enforceable; actual recovery is not established. The defendant was informed of reopening by kaja within 30 days after service or, for public service, after learning of the judgment or enforcement proceedings. The claimant was informed of an appeal to Tartu Ringkonnakohus within 30 days after service, no later than five months after public announcement.

Outcome of this decision

The claim was granted by default: principal, late-payment interest and 260 euros in costs were awarded. The judgment is immediately enforceable. Continuing late-payment interest and actual enforcement are not established by this act.
2-13-8500

Korteriühistu XX

Documents and informationInspection and copies of documentsApartment association board and managementAuthority and representationParking and groundsConstruction of parking facilitiesUse of shared land

Editorial summary

The court distinguished general procedures for handling requests from a specific refusal to provide necessary information.

· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-13-8500/72Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Board responses to requests and equal access to information

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Korteriühistu XX ·

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: XX — claimant and appellant, association member; Association XX — defendant

Editorial summary

The court distinguished general procedures for handling requests from a specific refusal to provide necessary information.

The dispute and the court’s decision

XX challenged association XX’s decisions on parking and handling requests. Following remittal from the Supreme Court, Tartu Ringkonnakohus reconsidered only the requests provision; the parking issue had already been resolved. The court stressed members’ equal entitlement to necessary information and assessment of each request on its substance. The board nevertheless need not provide a written response to every communication unrelated to legitimate management interests. Here, documents had been supplied, maintenance questions explained at a meeting, and authorising the chair to respond alone did not infringe the member’s rights.

Outcome of this decision

The appeal was dismissed. The ultimate rejection of the claim was upheld on revised legal grounds. This does not authorise arbitrary denial of information: an unjustified refusal in a specific instance may be challenged. XX bears the first-instance and appellate costs.
2-15-3469

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 46 korteriühistu · 80170555

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

Editorial summary

The court granted the association’s claim by default without splitting the awarded debt into principal and late-payment interest in the operative part.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-3469/6Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 46: default judgment on debt and late-payment interest

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ TALLINNA MNT 46 · 80170555

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — KÜ TALLINNA MNT 46; Defendant — XX

Editorial summary

The court granted the association’s claim by default without splitting the awarded debt into principal and late-payment interest in the operative part.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ TALLINNA MNT 46 (now — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 46 korteriühistu) brought a debt and late-payment interest claim against XX. After service of the claim, the court entered judgment by default for failure to respond. There is no descriptive section or reasoning, so the basis of individual charges and the defendant’s objections are not set out. The claim was granted. The operative part awarded one debt amount without separately allocating principal and late-payment interest; the court set no new rate for the future. All procedural costs were imposed on XX. The association was awarded 472.80 euros in costs, comprising a 300-euro state fee and 172.80 euros in legal fees. The judgment is immediately enforceable, but actual performance is not established. The defendant was informed of reopening by kaja within 30 days after service, with a special public-service rule running from learning of the judgment or enforcement. The claimant was informed of an appeal to Tartu Ringkonnakohus within 30 days after service, no later than five months after public announcement.

Outcome of this decision

The debt and late-payment interest claim was granted by default; a debt amount and 472.80 euros in procedural costs were awarded. No additional future late-payment interest rate was set in the operative part. The judgment is immediately enforceable; receipt of money is not established.
2-14-56108

Narva linn, Juuli tn 3 korteriühistu · 80180737

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

Editorial summary

The defendant did not dispute the calculation and wanted a settlement, but proposed no specific terms; the court awarded the debt by judgment.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-56108/14Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Juuli 3: written debt proceedings without an agreed settlement

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ 26. JUULI 3 Narva · 80180737

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — KÜ 26. JUULI 3 Narva; Defendant, owner — XX

Editorial summary

The defendant did not dispute the calculation and wanted a settlement, but proposed no specific terms; the court awarded the debt by judgment.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ 26. JUULI 3 Narva (now — Narva linn, Juuli tn 3 korteriühistu) claimed dwelling-maintenance costs and late-payment interest from the owner XX. XX submitted a written response, did not dispute the calculation or basis of the claim and wished to settle. However, no specific payment schedule or settlement proposal was submitted. The court decided the case in writing and awarded payment by judgment; this was neither a default judgment nor approval of a settlement. The court found the claim justified and awarded principal and late-payment interest already accrued. Its reasoning referred to late-payment interest of 0.07% per day, but the operative part does not award continuing late-payment interest until payment. Procedural costs were imposed on XX; the association was awarded its paid state fee of 225 euros. The participants were informed of an appeal to Tartu Ringkonnakohus within 30 days after service, no later than five months after public announcement. Subsequent review or actual receipt of money is not established.

Outcome of this decision

Principal, accrued late-payment interest and a 225-euro state fee were awarded in written proceedings. No settlement or payment schedule was approved; continuing late-payment interest was not awarded in the operative part. Actual performance is not established.
2-14-54545

Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 4 korteriühistu · 80228651

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayObligations of multiple ownersRights in real propertyOwnership and register entries

Latest prepared act · · № 2-14-54545/23

Editorial summary

An assumption of joint ownership did not prove joint and several liability for the debt.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 1 · Unprepared stages: 1
· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-54545/23Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Daumani 4: the second defendant’s payment obligation was not proved

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Daumani 4 · 80228651

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — KÜ Daumani 4; first defendant — XX, proceedings previously discontinued; second defendant — XX, claim dismissed

Editorial summary

An assumption of joint ownership did not prove joint and several liability for the debt.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Daumani 4 (now — Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 4 korteriühistu). KÜ Daumani 4 brought a joint and several claim for management charges and late-payment interest against two persons XX. Proceedings against the first defendant had already been discontinued by a separate order; this judgment concerns the second. The court found no evidence that both defendants owned the apartment. It recognised the first as owner and association member; a bailiff’s assumption of joint ownership did not replace evidence. Taking the second defendant’s written explanations into account, the court found no payment obligation under statute, contract or legal succession. This conclusion concerns the facts of this case. The claim against the second defendant was dismissed in full. The association bears its own and the defendant’s costs, but no monetary costs requiring reimbursement to the defendant were established.

Outcome of this decision

The claim against the second defendant was dismissed for failure to prove a payment obligation. No monetary costs were awarded to that defendant.
Not prepared yet

· Case 2-14-54545 · Viru Maakohus · First instance

2-15-6226

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 17 korteriühistu · 80170377

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

Editorial summary

The default judgment established joint and several liability of two defendants for the debt and procedural costs.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-6226/9Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Tallinna 17: joint and several recovery from two defendants

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Tallinna 17 · 80170377

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — KÜ Tallinna 17; Two defendants, joint and several debtors — XX

Editorial summary

The default judgment established joint and several liability of two defendants for the debt and procedural costs.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Tallinna 17 (now — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 17 korteriühistu) brought a debt claim against two persons XX. After service of the claim, the court entered a default judgment for failure to respond, without a descriptive section or reasoning. The act does not disclose the composition of the charges or potential objections. The claim was granted in full: the debt was awarded against both defendants jointly and severally. This is one obligation, not a separate full debt owed by each. Procedural costs were also imposed jointly and severally; the association was awarded 391 euros in costs. Separately, it is to receive a refund of 25 euros in overpaid state fees. The judgment is immediately enforceable, but receipt of money is not established. The defendants were informed of reopening by kaja within 30 days after service or, for public service, after learning of the judgment or enforcement. The claimant was informed of an appeal to Tartu Ringkonnakohus within 30 days after service, no later than five months after public announcement.

Outcome of this decision

The claim was granted in full by default: debt and 391 euros in costs were awarded against two persons XX jointly and severally. Refund 25 euros in overpaid state fees to the association. The judgment is immediately enforceable; subsequent performance is not established.
2-15-5025

Narva linn, Linda tn 1 korteriühistu · 80180424

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

Editorial summary

The approved instalments do not remove the obligation to pay current invoices and include consequences of delay.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-5025/10Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Linda 1: instalments over 31 months and current invoices

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Linda 1 · 80180424

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — KÜ Linda 1; Defendant — XX

Editorial summary

The approved instalments do not remove the obligation to pay current invoices and include consequences of delay.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Linda 1 (now — Narva linn, Linda tn 1 korteriühistu) claimed debt and late-payment interest from XX. The participants submitted a settlement; the court approved it and terminated proceedings without separately deciding the original claim on its merits. XX acknowledged principal and accrued late-payment interest and agreed to reimburse 373 euros in the association’s procedural costs. Monthly repayment over 31 months is provided for, with early payment allowed. The association waived further late-payment interest if the agreement is complied with. Current invoices must be paid in addition to the instalments. A late instalment makes the whole debt enforceable with late-payment interest; the rate on the amount that has become due is 0.1% per day. Performance settles the mutual claims in this case. Procedural costs were allocated and fixed by agreement. After the order becomes final, the association is to receive a refund of 100 euros, half the state fee. The participants shortened the interlocutory appeal period to 2 days after service; the act also states an outer limit of five months after the order. Actual performance of the schedule or receipt of the refund is not established.

Outcome of this decision

The instalment settlement was approved and proceedings terminated. Current invoices remain payable separately; delay allows full recovery with late-payment interest of 0.1% per day. Costs follow the agreement; refund 100 euros in state fees to the association after finality.
2-15-106808

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 15 korteriühistu · 80218285

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

Editorial summary

The court approved the agreement between the apartment association Kerese 15 Narva and defendant XX on instalments and the consequences of breaching the schedule, and terminated the case.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-106808/8Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Debt to the association agreed to be repaid at 35 euros per month

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Kerese 15 Narva KÜ · 80218285

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant Kerese 15 Narva KÜ — creditor under the agreement.; Defendant XX — acknowledged the principal debt and accepted the schedule.

Editorial summary

The court approved the agreement between the apartment association Kerese 15 Narva and defendant XX on instalments and the consequences of breaching the schedule, and terminated the case.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Kerese 15 Narva brought a claim for debt and late-payment interest. The parties agreed the amounts of principal and costs and submitted an agreement for monthly instalments to the court. If even one payment is late by just one day, the entire balance becomes immediately payable. A contractual penalty intended to compensate for interest accrued by the time of the agreement, and further late-payment interest of 0,1% per day on the unpaid balance, are also provided for. These are agreed consequences of breach, not confirmation that they were actually applied. The court found no conflict with the law or good morals, approved the agreement and terminated the proceedings. Costs not named in the agreement remain with the defendant. After the ruling enters into force, half the state fee paid, 100 euros, is to be refunded to the association from the budget. Performance of the schedule has not been established.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the instalments and consequences of late payment: immediate payment of the balance, a contractual penalty and further late-payment interest. Terminate the case and allocate costs under the agreement; refund the association 100 euros in state fees after the ruling enters into force.
2-14-52077

Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 7 korteriühistu · 80183693

Documents and informationInspection and copies of documentsContracts, loans and bank documentsExplanations of charges and paymentsApartment association bills, payments and debtsBills and justification of charges

Editorial summary

Claimant XX and the apartment association Pähklimäe 7/11 agreed on provision of documents and a loan payment of no more than 7,32 euros per month. The court approved the agreement and terminated the case.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-52077/33Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Court approved provision of loan documents and a monthly payment limit

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Pähklimäe 7/11 · 80183693

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant XX — sought documents and determination of the loan payment.; Defendant KÜ Pähklimäe 7/11 — assumed obligations under the agreement.

Editorial summary

Claimant XX and the apartment association Pähklimäe 7/11 agreed on provision of documents and a loan payment of no more than 7,32 euros per month. The court approved the agreement and terminated the case.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Claimant XX asked the court to require the apartment association Pähklimäe 7/11 to provide loan documents and determine the monthly payment. At the hearing on 14 July 2015, the parties agreed on a list of documents and explanations. The association undertook to provide annex 1 to the loan agreement, the minutes of the meeting of 16 June 2008 with the participant list, a statement of payments to Danske Bank AS from 10 July 2008 to 25 June 2015, and explanations of the calculation of loan payments. The parties confirmed the claimant’s right to pay no more than 7,32 euros per month towards the loan. A change in how loan repayment was shown on monthly invoices was also noted. The court found the terms lawful and enforceable, approved the settlement and terminated the case. Each party bears its own costs. After termination, the same parties cannot bring the same claim again; an unperformed agreement can be enforced through a bailiff. Performance of the agreement is not confirmed.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement on providing loan documents and explanations and on the claimant’s right to pay no more than 7,32 euros per month. Terminate the case; leave each party to bear its own costs.