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

Apartment association / building

Year of actCourt level

Reset all

2-13-44218

Narva linn, Rahu tn 28a korteriühistu · 80158560

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

Editorial summary

The association sought recovery of arrears from a company. The court approved a settlement, terminated proceedings and ordered the security to be lifted after the ruling’s entry into force.

30.01.2015 · RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-13-44218/32Read actFirst instance30.01.2015

Separate act page

Company agreed a debt of 1 500 euros; judicial mortgage ordered to be removed

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Rahu 28A · NL Kinnisvara OÜ · 80158560 · 12134496

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant KÜ Rahu 28A – creditor under the agreement.; Defendant NL Kinnisvara OÜ – company undertaking the obligation.

Editorial summary

The association sought recovery of arrears from a company. The court approved a settlement, terminated proceedings and ordered the security to be lifted after the ruling’s entry into force.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The association and the company agreed that the debt on the day the agreement was signed was 1 500 euros. The company undertook to pay it in full by 1 February 2015. The association confirmed that it had no other claims against the company, including late-payment interest or other additional amounts. The court considered the agreement lawful and approved it. Each party bears its own costs. Proceedings were terminated, and the earlier security for the claim is to be lifted after the ruling becomes final. This concerns a judicial mortgage of 8 147,10 euros over the company’s property in the association’s favour, imposed by a ruling of 27 September 2013. The mortgage amount is the security for the former claim, rather than a new debt under the agreement. The parties waived an appeal. The ruling states that it becomes final upon service on the participants; actual service, payment of the agreed debt and deletion of the mortgage entry are not established here.

Outcome of this decision

Approve NL Kinnisvara OÜ’s obligation to pay the apartment association Rahu 28A 1 500 euros by 1 February 2015 and terminate proceedings. Lift the security and remove the judicial mortgage of 8 147,10 euros after the ruling becomes final. Each party bears its own costs.

2-14-59481

Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 30 korteriühistu · 80145994

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

Editorial summary

The association sought arrears and late-payment interest from the defendant XX. The court approved nine months of instalments for debt, interest and costs with enforcement available on an overdue instalment and terminated proceedings.

29.01.2015 · Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-59481/12Read actFirst instance29.01.2015

Separate act page

Instalments and two separate fee reimbursements

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Kreenholmi 30 · 80145994

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and settlement creditor — KÜ Kreenholmi 30; defendant XX — accepted the payment schedule

Editorial summary

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Kreenholmi 30 (now — Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 30 korteriühistu). The court approved a settlement between KÜ Kreenholmi 30 and XX for monthly payment over nine months of debt, late-payment interest and agreed costs, and terminated proceedings. The settlement includes 108 euros in legal costs and 125 euros representing half the state fee. Late payment of an instalment permits enforcement; that condition adds no further late-payment interest rate. The general costs clause places half the fee, 125 euros, on XX and leaves other costs with the parties. Separately, a state-budget refund is ordered to the association in the amount of 125 euros from its 250-euro fee. Reimbursement by the defendant and the budget refund are distinct obligations. The appeal period was reduced to three days after service. Performance is not established.

Outcome of this decision

Settlement approved and proceedings terminated; an overdue instalment permits enforcement.

2-14-21824

Narva linn, Joala tn 10, Joala tn 12 korteriühistu · 80180387

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

Editorial summary

The association sought recovery of arrears from TÜ Ekstranar. After the association reported payment, the court accepted its waiver of the claim and terminated the case.

08.01.2015 · RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-21824/9Read actFirst instance08.01.2015

Separate act page

Association waived its claim against Ekstranar after payment

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Joala 10/12 · TÜ Ekstranar · 80180387 · 10132027

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant KÜ Joala 10/12 — reported payment of the debt and waived the claim.; Defendant TÜ Ekstranar — did not object to the court’s request for views on termination.

Editorial summary

The association sought recovery of arrears from TÜ Ekstranar. After the association reported payment, the court accepted its waiver of the claim and terminated the case.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The association filed a debt claim on 10 June 2014. On 22 September it asked for the case to be terminated, reporting that the defendant had paid the debt. The claimant did not seek reimbursement of its own costs, but asked that the defendant bear its own costs and that half the state fee be refunded. The court asked Ekstranar for its views and warned that no response would be treated as an absence of objections. The request was received on 17 November 2014, but no reply arrived within the deadline. The court accepted the waiver as lawful and compatible with the public interest and terminated the proceedings. Costs were left to the defendant, but no specific sums were awarded to the association, which had not sought reimbursement. A refund to the association from the budget of 175 euros, half the 350 euro state fee paid on filing, was ordered, payable once the ruling entered into force. The court explained the prohibition on bringing the same claim against the same defendant on the same grounds again.

Outcome of this decision

Accept the apartment association Joala 10/12’s waiver of its claim against TÜ Ekstranar and terminate the case. Leave costs to the defendant without awarding the association any specific sums. Refund the claimant 175 euros in state fees after the ruling enters into force.

2-14-10992

Narva linn, Linda tn 1 korteriühistu · 80180424

Documents and informationInspection and copies of documentsReporting and review of expenditureContracts, loans and bank documentsExplanations of charges and payments

Editorial summary

A company sought access to the association’s documents. The court dismissed the claim because the interest was insufficiently substantiated and the document list was unclear.

22.12.2014 · JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-10992/22Read actFirst instance22.12.2014

Separate act page

Access to documents refused: court found the request insufficiently specific and the interest unproven

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

OÜ ROBURINK · KÜ Linda 1 · 10611746 · 80180424

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant OÜ ROBURINK — former premises owner and association member.; Defendant KÜ Linda 1 — holder of the documents requested.

Editorial summary

A company sought access to the association’s documents. The court dismissed the claim because the interest was insufficiently substantiated and the document list was unclear.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The company ROBURINK sought meeting minutes and documents on the association’s repairs, contracts, invoices and expenditure over several years. It considered that the accounts did not explain the work actually done and charges made, and that the board obstructed scrutiny. The company relied on a member’s right to information and the right to inspect documents where a justified interest exists. The association objected that the company had sold its premises during the proceedings and ceased to be a member. It had no unpaid debt to the association. The association requested that the claim be left without examination or dismissed, arguing that the interest had not been substantiated and the document list was too general. The court found that ROBURINK was still a member when it filed the claim, but had ceased to be one through the sale by the time of the hearing. The court also assessed independent grounds for access to documents. It distinguished inspection from transfer of possession: the provision cited by the claimant did not give a right to receive the documents. From the explanation about copies, the court concluded that transfer of the documents was in fact sought. The court also found the company’s specific interest unproven: it had not shown which documents concerned its legal relationships or reported preparation of another claim for which they were needed. The general list did not allow the documents to be produced to be identified precisely or a possible judgment to be enforced. The claim was dismissed in full. ROBURINK was left to bear the association’s costs as well as its own. The judgment did not determine a specific costs amount.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss OÜ ROBURINK’s claim against the apartment association Linda 1 for access to documents. Order ROBURINK to bear the association’s costs and leave the company’s own costs to it.

2-13-21554

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 18 korteriühistu

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

Latest prepared act · 18.12.2014 · № 2-13-21554/80

Editorial summary

A debt-collection company sought joint and several payment of debt and interest from two owners XX. The court added reasons to its earlier dismissal, finding payment of the debt to the association proved.

Case historyPrepared acts: 1 · Unprepared stages: 1

18.12.2014 · JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-13-21554/80Read actFirst instance18.12.2014

Separate act page

Supplemented judgment explained rejection of a debt collector’s claim: the earlier debt had been paid

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Harjaks Inkasso OÜ · KÜ Nartall 18 · 12341373 ·

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant Harjaks Inkasso OÜ — acquirer of the claim.; Two defendants XX — owners from whom a common amount was sought.; Apartment association Nartall 18 — previous creditor, not a party to this claim.

Editorial summary

The dispute and the court’s decision

Harjaks Inkasso OÜ, which had acquired a claim from the apartment association Nartall 18, sought to recover 1 306,52 euros jointly and severally from two owners: 722,44 euros in principal and 584,08 euros in late-payment interest, together with further interest of 0,07% per day from 1 August 2013, capped at the principal. One defendant disputed the calculation and submitted invoices and payment certificates. The second did not respond to the claim. The court refused to enter a default judgment solely against the second defendant: in this dispute, the existence and amount of the common debt had to be determined jointly for both. The court interpreted the first defendant’s written acknowledgement as confirming an existing debt rather than creating a new independent obligation. The debtor could therefore challenge it without a separate counterclaim. The court found the assignment to the debt collector proved, but that did not exclude objections available against the previous creditor. The claimant’s calculation differed from the association’s invoices. The court found it proved that the debt had been paid by 13 June 2014. It did not accept in full another certificate stating there had been no debt throughout the period since 2010, because other documents confirmed the earlier debt. Nevertheless, the particular claim and interest sought could not be granted. The claim had already been dismissed in a short judgment on 23 October 2014. After the claimant announced an intention to appeal, the court added a factual description and reasons while maintaining full dismissal. Costs were left to the debt collector. The court corrected the value of the claim from 1 444,88 euros to 1 491,10 euros; this is a procedural valuation, not an award of money.

Outcome of this decision

Supplement the judgment of 23 October 2014 with a factual description and reasons. Dismiss Harjaks Inkasso OÜ’s claim against the two defendants for joint and several debt and late-payment interest. Leave costs to the claimant; correct the claim value to 1 491,10 euros.

Not prepared yet

23.10.2014 · Case 2-13-21554 · Viru Maakohus · First instance

2-14-7801

Narva linn, Energia tn 5 korteriühistu · 80250432

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

Editorial summary

The association sought arrears and late-payment interest from the defendant XX. The court awarded debt and interest by default, allowing immediate enforcement and directing service of the judgment by public notice.

16.12.2014 · JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-7801/16Read actFirst instance16.12.2014

Separate act page

Default debt award and public service

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Narva Energia 5 · 80250432

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and creditor — KÜ Narva Energia 5; defendant XX — subject of the award and public service

Editorial summary

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Narva Energia 5 (now — Narva linn, Energia tn 5 korteriühistu). KÜ Narva Energia 5 claimed debt and late-payment interest from XX. Claim documents were served publicly through Ametlikud Teadaanded. The court allowed the claim by default without descriptive or reasoning sections: specific charges and substantive objections are not disclosed. Principal, late-payment interest and fees for the payment-order and claim stages were awarded, with costs imposed on XX. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security. The court ordered public service of the operative part and appeal instructions. This does not establish subsequent publication or payment of the award.

Outcome of this decision

Debt and late-payment interest awarded by default; judgment immediately enforceable and public service ordered.

2-14-15643

Narva linn, Rakvere tn 89 korteriühistu · 80145528

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

Editorial summary

The association’s dispute with XX concerned debt owed to it. The court approved six months of instalments with separate payment of current bills and costs and terminated proceedings.

16.12.2014 · Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-15643/35Read actFirst instance16.12.2014

Separate act page

Instalments and current bills

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Rakvere 89 Narva · 80145528

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and creditor — KÜ Rakvere 89 Narva; defendant XX — acknowledged the debt and schedule

Editorial summary

The association’s dispute with XX concerned debt owed to it. The court approved six months of instalments with separate payment of current bills and costs and terminated proceedings.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Rakvere 89 Narva (now — Narva linn, Rakvere tn 89 korteriühistu). The court approved a settlement between KÜ Rakvere 89 Narva and XX on acknowledged debt and terminated proceedings. Monthly instalments over six months and separate timely payment of current bills were agreed. Late payment of principal attracts late-payment interest of 0.07% per day on the unpaid portion. The association’s costs are reimbursed separately by the agreed deadline. The court found the settlement lawful and enforceable. Each party bears other costs; no further costs were separately awarded. The appeal period was reduced to three days after service. Subsequent performance is not established.

Outcome of this decision

Settlement approved and proceedings terminated; current bills and costs are payable separately.

2-14-58807

Narva linn, Linda tn 1 korteriühistu · 80180424

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

Latest prepared act · 19.11.2014 · № 2-14-58807/10

Editorial summary

The association sought arrears and late-payment interest from the defendant XX. The court approved instalments for debt and costs, set aside the earlier default judgment because of the settlement and terminated proceedings.

Case historyPrepared acts: 1 · Unprepared stages: 1

19.11.2014 · Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-58807/10Read actFirst instance19.11.2014

Separate act page

Linda 1: settlement after a default judgment was set aside

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 dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Linda 1 (now — Narva linn, Linda tn 1 korteriühistu) claimed debt and late-payment interest from XX. After the claim was granted by default on 04.11.2014, the participants submitted a settlement. The court approved it, set aside the earlier default judgment in full and terminated proceedings. The judgment was set aside because of the settlement, not because no debt was found to exist. XX acknowledged the debt and agreed to reimburse 395 euros in the association’s costs. Monthly payments over 12 months and early repayment are provided for. The association waived further late-payment interest if the agreement is complied with. Current invoices are payable separately. A late instalment makes the entire 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 dealt with in this case. Costs were allocated and fixed by agreement. The association is to receive a refund of 125 euros, half the state fee. By agreement, the interlocutory appeal period was shortened to 2 days after service, with an outer limit of five months after the order. The act does not establish performance of the schedule or receipt of the refund.

Outcome of this decision

The settlement was approved, the default judgment of 04.11.2014 set aside and proceedings terminated. Debt and agreed costs are payable by instalments; delay allows full recovery with late-payment interest of 0.1% per day. Refund 125 euros in state fees to the association.

Not prepared yet

04.11.2014 · Case 2-14-58807 · Viru Maakohus · First instance

2-14-55911

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 3 korteriühistu · 80162521

Apartment association meetings and decisions

Editorial summary

A company sought to invalidate the association’s general meeting decisions. The court refused to admit the claim because the fee remained unpaid and translations of evidence were missing.

18.11.2014 · RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-55911/3Read actFirst instance18.11.2014

Separate act page

Claim to set aside meeting decisions not accepted for proceedings: fee unpaid and translations missing

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

OÜ Rosehill · KÜ KANGELASTE 3 · 10972543 · 80162521

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant OÜ Rosehill — did not remedy the defects in the claim.; Defendant KÜ KANGELASTE 3 — organisation whose decisions were challenged.

Editorial summary

A company sought to invalidate the association’s general meeting decisions. The court refused to admit the claim because the fee remained unpaid and translations of evidence were missing.

The dispute and the court’s decision

On 14 August 2014, the company Rosehill applied to have the association’s meeting decisions of 15 May 2014 set aside. On 16 September, the court required defects in the claim to be remedied, allowing 14 days from receipt of the ruling to pay a 300 euro state fee and submit Estonian translations of the attached evidence. The ruling was received on 17 September and the deadline expired on 1 October. Neither the fee nor the translations were provided in time, although the applicant had been warned of the consequences. The court therefore refused to accept for proceedings the claim and ordered the application and attachments returned after the ruling entered into force. The lawfulness of the meeting decisions was not examined in this act. Costs were left entirely to the claimant. The ruling contains no specific costs award in favour of the association.

Outcome of this decision

Refuse to accept for proceedings OÜ Rosehill’s claim against the apartment association KANGELASTE 3 concerning the meeting decisions of 15 May 2014. Leave costs to the claimant; return the application and attachments after the ruling enters into force.

2-14-58806

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 association sought recovery of debt from the defendant XX. The court approved 23 months of instalments with separate payment of current bills and enforcement with interest on delay and terminated proceedings.

27.10.2014 · Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-58806/6Read actFirst instance27.10.2014

Separate act page

Linda 1: debt instalments and consequences of delay

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 dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Linda 1 (now — Narva linn, Linda tn 1 korteriühistu) brought a debt claim against XX. The court approved a settlement and terminated proceedings without a separate decision on the merits of the original claim. XX acknowledged principal and accrued late-payment interest. The agreement provides for monthly payments over 23 months, permits early payment and includes reimbursement of 395 euros in the association’s procedural costs. The association waived further late-payment interest if the agreement is complied with. Current invoices must be paid separately from the instalments. A late instalment allows enforcement of the entire debt with late-payment interest; 0.1% per day applies to the amount that has become due. Performance of the agreed obligation settles the mutual claims in this case. Costs were allocated according to the settlement; the association’s unlisted costs and XX’s costs remain with each participant. The court made no separate monetary costs assessment because the participants did not request one. A refund of half the state fee will be decided by a separate order after this order’s entry into force. The parties shortened the time for an interlocutory appeal to 2 days after service; the court also stated an outer limit of five months after the order. Performance of the schedule is not established.

Outcome of this decision

The instalment settlement was approved and proceedings terminated. Delay allows enforcement of the debt with late-payment interest of 0.1% per day on the amount that has become due. Costs follow the settlement; the state-fee refund is decided separately.

2-14-24247

Narva linn, Rakvere tn 34 korteriühistu · 80175512

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

Editorial summary

The association sought arrears and late-payment interest from the defendant XX. The court refused admission because no proper claim was filed and the supplementary court fee was not paid, without deciding the debt on its merits.

20.10.2014 · Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-24247/11Read actFirst instance20.10.2014

Separate act page

Rakvere 34: debt claim not admitted after payment-order proceedings

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KORTERIÜHISTU RAKVERE 34 NARVA · 80175512

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — KORTERIÜHISTU RAKVERE 34 NARVA; Debtor named in the application — XX

Editorial summary

The dispute and the court’s decision

KORTERIÜHISTU RAKVERE 34 NARVA (now — Narva linn, Rakvere tn 34 korteriühistu) claimed debt and late-payment interest from XX. Pärnu Maakohus ended expedited payment-order proceedings and transferred the claim to Viru Maakohus for civil proceedings. The court required a proper claim with grounds and evidence, and an additional state fee, within 14 days. After service of the order, the association submitted no claim in the required form and paid no supplement. The court found the payment-order application in the information system insufficient: supporting documents were not attached. The claim value included principal, accrued late-payment interest and future late-payment interest. The court stated a 200-euro state fee, 45 euros already paid and 155 euros outstanding; the additional-payment requirement was not met. The court refused admission to civil proceedings and imposed the costs on the association. The application is treated as not filed; this order neither examined the debt on its merits nor awarded it. An interlocutory appeal lies to Tartu Ringkonnakohus through Viru Maakohus within 15 days after service, no later than five months after the order. The result of any further appeal is unknown.

Outcome of this decision

The association’s application was not admitted to civil proceedings because no proper claim or supplementary state fee was submitted. The association bears the costs. Refusal of admission does not establish that no debt existed.

2-12-32719

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 3 korteriühistu · 80162521

Apartment association meetings and decisions

Editorial summary

A company and the claimant XX sought a declaration that the association’s general meeting decisions were void. The court approved an agreement on both claimants’ waiver of the claim and terminated the case.

14.10.2014 · RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-12-32719/47Read actFirst instance14.10.2014

Separate act page

Company and second claimant ended their meeting dispute by an agreed waiver of the claim

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

OÜ Rosehill · KÜ KANGELASTE 3 · 10972543 · 80162521

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant OÜ Rosehill – company.; Claimant XX – second person bringing the claim.; Defendant KÜ KANGELASTE 3 – supported the agreed waiver.

Editorial summary

The dispute and the court’s decision

The company Rosehill and individual XX sought a declaration that the association’s meeting decisions of 28 May 2012 were void, meaning they had no legal effect from adoption. The parties then agreed to end the case and submitted a request to that effect on 9 September 2014. Both claimants waived the claim and the association supported the waiver. The participants confirmed that they had no mutual claims in this case and agreed to bear their own costs. The court considered the agreement lawful, enforceable and consistent with the public interest, approved it and terminated proceedings. The ruling contains no independent finding of nullity concerning the meeting. A refund of 150 euros, half the total court fee of 300 euros, was ordered, payable once the ruling became final. At the claimants’ request, this amount is to be transferred to Rosehill. An actual refund is not confirmed.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement on both claimants’ waiver of the claim, absence of mutual claims and each party bearing its own costs. Terminate the case; refund 150 euros in court fees to Rosehill’s account after the ruling becomes final.