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
2-15-7580

Narva linn, Soldina tn 18c korteriühistu · 80061091

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

Editorial summary

The apartment association Valge Sein obtained a default award of debt against defendant XX, who did not respond to the claim served.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-7580/5Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Default judgment awarded 746,14 euros in debt and 185 euros in costs

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Valge Sein · 80061091

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant KÜ Valge Sein — sought debt.; Defendant XX — did not respond to the claim.

Editorial summary

The apartment association Valge Sein obtained a default award of debt against defendant XX, who did not respond to the claim served.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Valge Sein brought a claim for principal debt against defendant XX. The claim documents were served, but the defendant did not submit a response within the deadline. The court granted the claim by default judgment and awarded the principal and court costs, including the state fee and legal assistance. The judgment was issued without a factual description or reasons: it does not disclose a detailed debt calculation or substantive objections from the defendant. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security. This allows enforcement to be sought before the usual point at which a judgment becomes final, but does not confirm that the association received the money awarded.

Outcome of this decision

Award the apartment association Valge Sein principal debt and court costs against XX. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security.
2-15-6248

Narva linn, V. Gerassimovi tn 4 korteriühistu · 80170236

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

Editorial summary

The apartment association Gerassimovi 4 Narva and defendant XX agreed to repay the debt over 12 months. The court approved the agreement and terminated the case.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-6248/9Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Agreement on a 1 802,35 euro debt approved with instalments over one year

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Gerassimovi 4 Narva · 80170236

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant KÜ Gerassimovi 4 Narva — claimed the debt.; Defendant XX — accepted the payment schedule.

Editorial summary

The apartment association Gerassimovi 4 Narva and defendant XX agreed to repay the debt over 12 months. The court approved the agreement and terminated the case.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Gerassimovi 4 Narva and defendant XX agreed to repay a debt for use of housing and utilities over 12 months. Payments must arrive no later than the last day of the relevant month; early repayment is allowed. Late-payment interest on the debt stops accruing when the agreement is signed. The court found the terms lawful, consistent with the participants’ interests and enforceable, approved the agreement and terminated the case. Each party bears its own costs; there are no sums to be recovered from the other party for costs. Refund of costs, including the association’s request for a refund of half the state fee, was left to a separate ruling after the present ruling entered into force. Performance of the schedule has not been established.

Outcome of this decision

Approve instalments over one year, cessation of late-payment interest from signing of the agreement and a right to early payment. Terminate the case; leave each party to bear its own costs. Decide refund of costs separately.
2-14-58302

Narva linn, Joala tn 5 korteriühistu · 80158985

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

Editorial summary

The court approved the agreement between the apartment association JOALA 5 and defendant XX on payment of the debt and terminated the proceedings.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-58302/43Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Building maintenance costs dispute ended in an agreement for 864,64 euros

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KORTERIÜHISTU JOALA 5 · 80158985

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant KORTERIÜHISTU JOALA 5 — claimed the debt.; Defendant XX — undertook to pay the agreed amount.

Editorial summary

The court approved the agreement between the apartment association JOALA 5 and defendant XX on payment of the debt and terminated the proceedings.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association JOALA 5 and defendant XX agreed on payment of a debt for housing maintenance costs. The settlement terms reproduced contain no separate schedule or payment deadline. The court found the agreement lawful, enforceable and consistent with the participants’ interests, approved it and terminated the case. The ruling contains no independent assessment of all the original arguments about the debt calculation. Each party bears its own court costs; there are no costs to be recovered from the other party. The court left the refund of half the state fee to a separate ruling. The parties agreed on a five-day appeal period after service.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the debt payment agreement and terminate the case. Leave each party to bear its own costs; determine the refund of half the state fee separately.
2-15-4226

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 36 korteriühistu · 80170153

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

Editorial summary

After service of the claim via the mailbox, the court considered the apartment association Tallinna mnt 36’s claim against XX by default and declared the judgment immediately enforceable without security.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-4226/10Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Default judgment awarded a debt of 1 332,11 euros and late-payment interest of 174,14 euros

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Tallinna mnt 36 · 80170153

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant KÜ Tallinna mnt 36 – sought debt and late-payment interest.; Defendant XX – person ordered to pay the debt, late-payment interest and court fee.

Editorial summary

After service of the claim via the mailbox, the court considered the apartment association Tallinna mnt 36’s claim against XX by default and declared the judgment immediately enforceable without security.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Tallinna mnt 36 brought a claim for debt and late-payment interest. The documents were served on the defendant via the mailbox. The court proceeded by default under the provision governing failure to respond to a claim. The association was awarded the debt, accrued late-payment interest and the court fee paid; litigation costs were imposed on the defendant. The operative part does not order further accrual of late-payment interest. The judgment was drawn up without an account of the case or reasons, so it does not disclose the detailed calculation grounds or substantive objections. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security. This is a procedural feature of the judgment; it does not establish actual payment of the awarded sums.

Outcome of this decision

Award the apartment association Tallinna mnt 36 the debt, accrued late-payment interest and court fee against XX. Costs are borne by the defendant. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security.
2-15-2425

Narva linn, Soldina tn 10 korteriühistu · 80170667

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

Editorial summary

The court granted the apartment association TIIMANI 10’s claim against two defendants XX by default and imposed a shared obligation to pay the debt, late-payment interest and court fee.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-2425/8Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Two defendants ordered jointly and severally to pay 1 664,83 euros in debt and late-payment interest

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KORTERIÜHISTU TIIMANI 10 · 80170667

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant KORTERIÜHISTU TIIMANI 10 – sought arrears.; Two defendants XX – joint and several debtors under the judgment.

Editorial summary

The court granted the apartment association TIIMANI 10’s claim against two defendants XX by default and imposed a shared obligation to pay the debt, late-payment interest and court fee.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association TIIMANI 10 brought a debt claim against two defendants XX. The claim documents were served by public notice through Ametlikud Teadaanded; the source confirms publication of that notice. The court gave a default judgment without an account of the case or reasons, so it does not set out detailed calculations or substantive objections. The debt, late-payment interest and court fee expenses were awarded against the defendants jointly and severally. This is a shared obligation: the association may seek the unpaid awarded amount from either debtor, but may not receive the full amount twice. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security. The court also ordered service of the judgment on the defendants by public notice through Ametlikud Teadaanded. Publication of a notice about the claim and an order to serve the judgment are different procedural steps. The order itself does not establish actual publication of the judgment or receipt of money.

Outcome of this decision

By default judgment, order the two defendants jointly and severally to pay the apartment association TIIMANI 10 the debt, late-payment interest and court fee expenses. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security; service on the defendants by public notice is provided for.
2-08-85420

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 17 korteriühistu · 80170377

Repairs and shared propertyBasement, stairwell and shared roomsAccess to premises for worksApartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeQuorum and repeat meetingsVoting and representation

Latest prepared act · · № 2-08-85420/81

Editorial summary

OÜ Elpaste and the apartment association Tallinna 17 agreed on free use of the basement and the association’s access to building systems. The court approved the agreement and terminated proceedings.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 3
· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-08-85420/81Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Basement dispute ended by agreement on use and access to building systems

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

OÜ Elpaste · KÜ Tallinna 17 · ·

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant OÜ Elpaste – user of the premises challenging the decisions.; Defendant KÜ Tallinna 17 – agreed on use and access.

Editorial summary

OÜ Elpaste and the apartment association Tallinna 17 agreed on free use of the basement and the association’s access to building systems. The court approved the agreement and terminated proceedings.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The company Elpaste challenged an owners’ meeting decision. The case description dates it to 28 December 2009, while the settlement terms refer to a general meeting decision of 18 October 2009 transferring possession and use of shared basement rooms used by the company to the association. Under the agreement, the defendant admitted the claim concerning the association’s meeting decision, while the claimant waived its claim concerning the owners’ decision. The parties agreed to restore the position before the decisions: the association does not charge for use of the basement and acknowledges that the company has no debt relating to use of its premises and the basement. The company undertook, within a month after the ruling becomes final, to dismantle a brick partition and provide permanent technical access to building systems in the basement and shop. The association installs shut-off fittings and taps at its own expense. Access is to be provided during the business’s working hours and at any time in an emergency or to prevent one. The court considered the agreement lawful, approved it and terminated proceedings. Each party bears its own costs. The claimant was awarded a refund of half the court fee, 159,78 euros. The ruling does not establish completion of the building works or the refund.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreed terms on basement use, absence of debt and technical access. Terminate proceedings, leave each party to bear its own costs and refund the claimant 159,78 euros in court fees from the state budget.
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohtu tsiviilkolleegium · Appeal · № 2-08-85420/43Read actAppeal

Separate act page

KÜ Tallinna 17 and OÜ Elpaste: part of the meeting and basement dispute was remitted

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohtu tsiviilkolleegium · Appeal

OÜ Elpaste · KÜ Tallinna 17 · 10013570 · 80170377

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and appellant — OÜ Elpaste; claimant’s representatives in the joined cases — XX; defendant — KÜ Tallinna 17; defendant’s representative — XX

Editorial summary

The claims concerned meeting decisions and basement use. Dismissal concerning the 2005 decision was upheld; the claims concerning the 2009 decisions were remitted for a fresh hearing.

The dispute and the court’s decision

OÜ Elpaste challenged KÜ Tallinna 17’s decision of 23 April 2005, the repeat general meeting decision of 18 October 2009 and the owners’ decision of 28 December 2009. Two proceedings were joined. The county court dismissed all claims after disregarding Russian-language documents without Estonian translations. The circuit court upheld dismissal concerning the 2005 decision: the representative handling that claim had received sufficient warnings about translations and the consequences of failing to provide them. Dismissal concerning the 2009 decisions was set aside and that part returned from the preliminary stage. After joinder, documents had been sent to only one of the claimant’s two representatives; the other representative’s participation and the translation requirements for those claims had not been properly addressed. The fresh proceedings must clarify notice, agenda, quorum and the nature of the meetings. The dispute included demands that the claimant vacate basement rooms for common use. The county court must decide whether a majority association decision was sufficient or an agreement between co-owners was required. A meeting decision is not itself an enforcement instrument for changing possession and use of common property. The circuit court did not determine the validity of the 2009 decisions or the later result. Costs remained for the county court on the merits.

Outcome of this decision

The appeal was allowed in part. The judgment of 11 May 2012 was set aside concerning the decisions of 18 October and 28 December 2009, with that part remitted from the preliminary stage. Dismissal of the claim concerning the decision of 23 April 2005 remained unchanged. The county court was to allocate costs.
· JudgmentViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-08-85420/28Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Tallinna 17: the initial dismissal for missing translations was later partly reversed

Judgment · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

OÜ Eipaste · Korteriühistu Tallinna 17 · 10013570 · 80170377

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — OÜ Eipaste; Defendant — Korteriühistu Tallinna 17

Editorial summary

The county court dismissed the claims for missing translations. The circuit court later upheld the 2005 part but remitted the part concerning the 2009 decisions.

The dispute and the court’s decision

OÜ Eipaste challenged decisions of Korteriühistu Tallinna 17. It sought a declaration that the decision of 23 April 2005 was void and sought to set aside decisions of 18 October and 28 December 2009. The claims were heard together. The association admitted neither the claims nor their alleged factual basis. The court dismissed all claims because the admissible evidence was insufficient. Important documents, including meeting minutes, had been supplied in Russian without the required Estonian translations. No translations were provided despite explanations, deadlines and representatives’ promises. The court disregarded those documents. After repeated adjournments, the case was decided in writing. The parties had an opportunity to provide further documents and request a personal hearing but did not use it. The remaining materials did not establish the facts underlying the claims. This was a dismissal for lack of proof, not a separate finding that the substance of every meeting decision was lawful. Initially, all costs were allocated to OÜ Eipaste without fixing an amount. On 2 May 2013, Tartu Ringkonnakohus upheld dismissal concerning the 2005 meeting decision but set aside dismissal concerning the two 2009 decisions and remitted that part from the preliminary stage. The later judgment explains that the 2009 dispute involved vacating a common basement and the necessary agreement between co-owners, matters for the county court to establish. The initial full dismissal therefore did not survive in its entirety. The result of the fresh proceedings is not established here.

Outcome of this decision

The initial full dismissal was partly reversed on 2 May 2013. Dismissal concerning the 2005 decision was upheld; the claims concerning the two 2009 decisions were remitted from the preliminary stage. Their new outcome and actual enforcement are not established here.
2-15-103285

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 13 korteriühistu · 80121083 · Narva linn, Malmi tn 12 korteriühistu · 80250389

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

Editorial summary

The court refused to accept the application by the apartment association PUŠKINI 13 against the apartment association MALMI 12: the applicant had not submitted a properly formatted claim or paid the additional court fee.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-103285/4Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

One association’s application against another refused because defects were not remedied

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KORTERIÜHISTU PUŠKINI 13 · KORTERIÜHISTU MALMI 12 · 80121083 · 80250389

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant KORTERIÜHISTU PUŠKINI 13 – failed to meet the requirements for formatting and additional payment.; Apartment association MALMI 12 – organisation against which the monetary claim was made.

Editorial summary

The court refused to accept the application by the apartment association PUŠKINI 13 against the apartment association MALMI 12: the applicant had not submitted a properly formatted claim or paid the additional court fee.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The claim was initially handled in expedited payment order proceedings. A Pärnu Maakohus ruling of 17 April 2015 referred it to Viru Maakohus to continue as an ordinary civil claim. On 24 April, the court required defects in the application to be remedied: a properly formatted and reasoned claim and the additional court fee were due within 14 days. This requirement was served on the applicant on 11 May but was not met in time. The original application stated principal of 214,79 euros and an additional claim of 150,57 euros, making a claim value of 365,36 euros. A court fee of 45 euros had been paid instead of the 100 euros required for a civil claim, leaving 55 euros to pay. The court also noted the absence of documents supporting the claim and the representative’s authority. Because the formal and payment defects were not remedied, the court refused to accept the application for proceedings. The merits of MALMI 12’s alleged debt were not examined in this ruling. All costs were left with PUŠKINI 13; there were no amounts recoverable from the other party.

Outcome of this decision

Refuse to accept the debt application by the apartment association PUŠKINI 13 against the apartment association MALMI 12 into ordinary civil proceedings. Leave costs with the applicant; no costs are reimbursable by the other party.
2-14-15096

Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 9 korteriühistu · 80289285

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

Editorial summary

The apartment association VÕIDU 9 NARVA and defendant XX agreed to repay the debt and part of the court fee over 12 months. The court approved the agreement and terminated proceedings.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-15096/51Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Debt and notarial expenses included in an agreement with a one-year payment schedule

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KORTERIÜHISTU VÕIDU 9 NARVA · 80289285

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant KORTERIÜHISTU VÕIDU 9 NARVA – claimed arrears and late-payment interest.; Defendant XX – acknowledged the debt and agreed a payment schedule.

Editorial summary

The apartment association VÕIDU 9 NARVA and defendant XX agreed to repay the debt and part of the court fee over 12 months. The court approved the agreement and terminated proceedings.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association VÕIDU 9 NARVA and defendant XX agreed to repay arrears comprising principal, late-payment interest and notarial expenses over 12 months. The association’s current bills must be paid in addition. If the instalment or current-payment obligations are breached, the association may demand late-payment interest of 0,07% per day on the unpaid portion until performance. Each party bears its own costs, except for half the claimant’s court fee, which the defendant reimburses in instalments. Separately, the association was awarded a court fee refund of 87,50 euros* from the state budget after the ruling becomes final. The court considered the agreement lawful, approved it and terminated proceedings. Compliance with the payment schedule is not confirmed.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the one-year debt repayment schedule, payment of current bills and late-payment interest upon default. Terminate proceedings. The defendant reimburses half the court fee on the schedule; the association is entitled to a refund of 87,50 euros* from the state budget after the ruling becomes final.
2-15-5223

Narva linn, Rakvere tn 34 korteriühistu · 80175512

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

Editorial summary

The court approved the apartment association RAKVERE 34 NARVA’s agreement with defendant XX on instalments until the end of 2017 and terminated the case.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-5223/9Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Debt of 1 176,95 euros agreed to be paid under a seasonal schedule

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KORTERIÜHISTU RAKVERE 34 NARVA · 80175512

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant KORTERIÜHISTU RAKVERE 34 NARVA — agreed to instalments.; Defendant XX — accepted the schedule and the consequences of breach.

Editorial summary

The court approved the apartment association RAKVERE 34 NARVA’s agreement with defendant XX on instalments until the end of 2017 and terminated the case.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association RAKVERE 34 NARVA and defendant XX agreed to payment of the debt and costs in instalments until the end of 2017. The schedule provided for higher monthly payments from May to October and lower payments from November to April. The association undertook not to charge further late-payment interest on the agreed debt until 31 December 2017. If the schedule was breached, the entire agreed amount became immediately payable. The court found the agreement lawful and enforceable, approved it and terminated the case. Each party bears its own remaining costs. The court left the refund of half the state fee to a separate ruling after the present ruling entered into force. Approval of the schedule does not confirm its performance.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the seasonal debt repayment schedule and the term making the entire agreed amount immediately payable on breach. Terminate the case. Allocate costs under the agreement; determine the refund of half the state fee separately.
2-14-57931

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

Damage and insuranceDamage caused during repairsCause and proof of damageAmount of compensationRepairs and shared propertyBasement, stairwell and shared rooms

Latest prepared act · · № 2-14-57931/24

Editorial summary

Tartu Ringkonnakohus set aside the judgment in favour of Täisühing Mašuk and refused to award 877,42 euros in damages against the apartment association Puškini 45A.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 1 · Unprepared stages: 1
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-14-57931/24Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Appeal court dismissed claim over a sunken floor: link to association’s works unproven

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Täisühing Mašuk · Puškini 45A Korteriühistu · 10444548 · 80250416

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant Täisühing Mašuk — owner of non-residential premises.; Defendant and appellant Puškini 45A Korteriühistu — challenged the award.

Editorial summary

Tartu Ringkonnakohus set aside the judgment in favour of Täisühing Mašuk and refused to award 877,42 euros in damages against the apartment association Puškini 45A.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The company Mašuk linked subsidence of a corridor floor in its non-residential premises to repairs to the strip around the building commissioned by the association. It alleged that a hole had been dug during the works and filled without proper compaction. The company sought 577,42 euros to restore the floor and 300 euros in expert examination costs. The association denied causing damage and pointed to a lack of evidence. On 23 January 2015, the first-instance court awarded 577,42 euros for repairs and 300 euros for the expert examination as costs. It regarded the floor as common property for whose upkeep the association was responsible regardless of the cause of subsidence. The association appealed, challenging that conclusion and the assessment of evidence. The appeal court found that the corridor formed part of the claimant’s premises and was used only by it. The finding that it was common property was not based on circumstances pleaded and discussed. The court saw no grounds to make the association bear the maintenance costs of this part of the premises. The court also found no proven link between the subsidence and the works commissioned by the association. The expert report pointed to defects in alteration of the entrance and corridor themselves: ground compaction, reinforcement, connection to the building and insulation. There was no evidence that the floor had subsided because of the repairs to the surrounding strip. As the act causing damage was unproven, the court did not assess unlawfulness and fault separately. The appeal was allowed: the earlier judgment was set aside and the claim dismissed in full. Costs at both instances were allocated to Mašuk; the association was awarded 460 euros, including 175 euros in state fees and 285 euros in representation costs.

Outcome of this decision

Set aside the Viru Maakohus judgment of 23 January 2015, allow the association’s appeal and dismiss Mašuk’s claim for 877,42 euros. Order Mašuk to pay the association 460 euros in costs.
Not prepared yet

· Case 2-14-57931 · Viru Maakohus · First instance

2-14-54873

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 3 korteriühistu · 80162521

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

Editorial summary

The court accepted the apartment association Kangelaste 3’s waiver of its claim against defendant XX and ordered a refund of half the state fee, 137,50 euros.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-54873/12Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Association waived its claim after reporting payment: case terminated

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Kangelaste 3 · 80162521

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant KÜ Kangelaste 3 — reported performance and waived the claim.; Defendant XX — addressee of the claim.

Editorial summary

The court accepted the apartment association Kangelaste 3’s waiver of its claim against defendant XX and ordered a refund of half the state fee, 137,50 euros.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The association brought a debt claim. Documents were sent to the defendant through competent authorities abroad, but the court had no confirmation of service; the defendant had not reported receipt either. On 2 February 2015, the claimant requested termination, explaining that the defendant had satisfied the claim after proceedings began. The court accepted the waiver of the claim, finding it compatible with the law and the public interest. In view of the claimant’s report of performance, the court did not wait for confirmation of service or ask the defendant’s views on termination. This act contains no independent determination of the amount of debt. Costs were left to the association: the claimant had not sought them from the defendant, and the defendant’s knowledge of the proceedings had not been proved. The court ordered half the 275 euro state fee paid, or 137,50 euros, refunded to the claimant. It explained that, following termination, a new claim against the same defendant with the same subject matter and grounds was not permitted.

Outcome of this decision

Accept the waiver of the claim and terminate the case. Leave costs to the apartment association Kangelaste 3; refund it 137,50 euros in state fees from the budget.
2-13-60402

Narva linn, Energia tn 2a korteriühistu

Damage and insuranceCause and proof of damageRepairs and shared propertyAmount of compensation

Latest prepared act · · № 2-13-60402/61

Editorial summary

Tartu Ringkonnakohus refused to accept for proceedings OÜ IKB’s appeal in its dispute with the apartment association Narva Lootus and returned the appeal to the company.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 2
· RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-13-60402/61Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Company’s appeal against an association not accepted for proceedings for non-payment of a 100 euro fee

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

OÜ IKB · KÜ Narva Lootus · ·

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: OÜ IKB — claimant and appellant.; Apartment association Narva Lootus — defendant in the compensation dispute.

Editorial summary

Tartu Ringkonnakohus refused to accept for proceedings OÜ IKB’s appeal in its dispute with the apartment association Narva Lootus and returned the appeal to the company.

The dispute and the court’s decision

OÜ IKB appealed against the Viru Maakohus judgment of 16 February 2015 in a monetary compensation dispute with the apartment association Narva Lootus. The appeal was filed on 16 March. By a ruling of 13 April, the appeal court required a deficiency in the appeal to be remedied and allowed 15 days after receipt of the ruling to pay a 100 euro state fee. The company’s representative received the ruling that same day. The fee was not paid within the deadline. The court refused to accept for proceedings the appeal and returned it to IKB. This is a procedural outcome caused by an unremedied deficiency in the appeal. The compensation claim and the substantive correctness of the first-instance judgment were not examined in this ruling.

Outcome of this decision

Refuse to accept for proceedings OÜ IKB’s appeal against the judgment of 16 February 2015 and return the appeal to the applicant.
· JudgmentViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-13-60402/54Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Inadequate cleaning: the association breached its duty, but the company did not prove loss

Judgment · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

OÜ IKB · KÜ NARVA LOOTUS · 10161031 · 80265468

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — OÜ IKB, owner of non-residential premises and association member; Defendant — KÜ NARVA LOOTUS, which managed the building

Editorial summary

The court found inadequate cleaning but refused compensation: a breach by the association did not itself prove the claimed loss.

The dispute and the court’s decision

OÜ IKB sought 468 euros in damages from KÜ NARVA LOOTUS for inadequate cleaning of the grounds. The company treated the fees paid for December 2012 to November 2013 as its loss and also referred to lost rental profit from commercial premises. The association maintained that services had been provided and that the company already paid less than the usual fee. The court found a breach of the association’s duty to maintain the grounds. Photographs and correspondence showed uncleared snow and rubbish. The caretaker’s limited working hours did not relieve the association of organising and funding adequate cleaning. However, the court did not find that no service had been provided at all. The claim failed because loss was not proved. The extent of the service that had not been provided could not be established, so the entire 468 euros paid was not treated as loss. No evidence established the lost profit or its amount. The company had not brought a separate claim for a declaration that it had no duty to pay the invoices. OÜ IKB must bear the proceedings costs. The association’s requested legal and witness costs were not quantified in this judgment; their amount was left for a separate order after the judgment became final. The court expressly permitted an appeal.

Outcome of this decision

The 468-euro claim was dismissed. Inadequate cleaning breached the association’s duty, but loss was not proved. The company bears costs, to be quantified separately.