Skip to decisions
Žuk — ANTON и JELENA

Narva apartment associations Court decisions

The collection is growing. We explain decisions in accessible language. Browsing by subject helps readers study building management practice, explore similar situations and prevent conflicts.

Materials for studying practice. An editorial summary does not replace an individual legal assessment or promise a dispute outcome.

Subjects and subtopics

A subject describes the dispute; it does not establish a violation.

Additional parameters

Reset all
Case 2-17-6287Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 46 korteriühistu · 80170555

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayBills and justification of charges

How it started · editorial summary

The association did not respond to the company’s claim; the court declared two claims absent by default and awarded the company court costs.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-6287/6Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 46: default judgment declared no company debt for interest and legal services

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

OÜ Peremaakler · Tallinna mnt 46 Korteriühistu · 11523072 · 80170555

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — OÜ Peremaakler; Defendant — Tallinna mnt 46 Korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The association did not respond to the company’s claim; the court declared two claims absent by default and awarded the company court costs.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court granted OÜ Peremaakler’s claim against Tallinna mnt 46 Korteriühistu by default. It declared that the company did not owe the association 2 614,55 euros in late-payment interest or 50 euros for legal services. It awarded the company 775 euros in court costs against the association, plus statutory interest on unpaid costs from entry into force until payment. The company bought an apartment at auction and became its owner in December 2016. It said the auction record showed no additional debts of the previous owner, but the association later issued an invoice including interest. The company considered the interest and legal services charge unjustified and sought a declaration that it had no duty to pay. The court admitted the claim on 9 May 2017, served the documents on the association on 11 May and the costs list on 13 June. It allowed 20 days to respond and warned of a default judgment. The association did not respond in time. The court granted the claim by default. The act contains no detailed objections from the association or separate examination of the lawfulness of each charge. The court found the requested 775 euros in costs justified; no objections to them had arrived either. The judgment is immediately enforceable. Declaring the two named claims absent does not mean those amounts are paid to the company: the monetary award concerns court costs and interest on them. Actual performance is not confirmed.

Outcome of this decision

Declare no debt owed by OÜ Peremaakler to the association for 2 614,55 euros in interest and 50 euros in legal services. Award the company 775 euros in costs against the association and statutory interest on the unpaid part from entry into force until performance. The judgment is immediately enforceable.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. The judgment is immediately enforceable.
First instance
Case 2-16-16692Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 25, Tallinna mnt 27 korteriühistu · 80162159

Water and sewerageMeters and readingsCalculation of water chargesApartment association bills, payments and debtsBills and justification of chargesLate-payment interest and consequences of delayPayment accounting and set-offLimitation of claims

How it started · editorial summary

The owner challenged 53,16 euros as interest, but the court found that interest paid and instead identified a principal balance resulting from the order in which payments were applied.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-16692/16Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 25/27: owner’s requests for a finding of no debt and limitation rejected

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Tallinna mnt 25/27 · 80162159

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — owner XX; Defendant — KÜ Tallinna mnt 25/27

How it started · editorial summary

The owner challenged 53,16 euros as interest, but the court found that interest paid and instead identified a principal balance resulting from the order in which payments were applied.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court dismissed XX’s claim against KÜ Tallinna mnt 25/27: it did not declare that the 53,16 euro debt was absent or grant the alternative request to establish expiry of limitation. This decides the owner’s claim; it is not a new monetary award to the association. The dispute began with cold water charges. The owner believed payment should follow the readings after a verified meter was installed. The association continued charging under the earlier standard and agreed to recalculate in May 2012. XX considered that there was then no basis for interest; the limitation period for old claims had also expired. The association objected that the owner continued reducing various invoices unilaterally after recalculation. Payments were applied first to accrued late-payment interest and then to principal. The balance therefore extended beyond the earlier water dispute. The court examined invoices and a summary calculation and agreed with the association. The owner had not challenged the meeting decision on standard water charges, which remained binding until amended. Unilaterally reducing invoices caused payment delays for which the association could seek interest. The court also found it lawful to apply payments first to interest and then to principal. It concluded that the disputed interest had already been paid in that way, while 53,16 euros in maintenance costs remained unpaid. It rejected the argument that refusing to pay interest allowed the owner to change this order. It also found no justification for reducing or refunding interest already paid. The limitation request was rejected: the court proceeded from the relevant earlier obligations having already been performed through payments, making limitation inapplicable to them. Costs were allocated to XX; their amount will be determined separately after the judgment enters into force.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss XX’s request for a declaration of no debt and the alternative limitation request. Leave the claimant’s own costs and the association’s costs to the claimant; their amount will be determined separately after entry into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
5. The court shall determine the monetary amount of procedural costs by a separate ruling after the judgment enters into force.
First instance
Case 2-16-19439Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 42 korteriühistu · 80054903

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayBills and justification of chargesApartment association meetings and decisions

Latest prepared act · · № 2-16-19439/11

How it started · editorial summary

Refusal to accept the counterclaim was upheld, but lack of prospects was replaced as the reason by the existence of an identical dispute already pending.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 1 · Unprepared stages: 1
· RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-16-19439/11Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 42: counterclaim refused because another case between the same parties was already pending

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ Tallinna mnt 42 · 80054903

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Original claimant and counterclaim defendant – KÜ Tallinna mnt 42; Original defendant, counterclaimant and appellant – XX

How it started · editorial summary

Refusal to accept the counterclaim was upheld, but lack of prospects was replaced as the reason by the existence of an identical dispute already pending.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Tallinna mnt 42 claimed debt and late-payment interest from XX. XX filed a counterclaim seeking a declaration that general meeting decisions were void, meaning without legal effect from adoption. XX linked the charges to what he considered an unjustified increase in the apartment’s floor area in the calculations. The county court refused to accept the counterclaim as having no prospect of success: no specific challenged decisions had been identified. The circuit court upheld the refusal but substituted its basis. Case 2-14-62722 concerning recalculation and absence of debt was already pending between the same parties. The court found that the counterclaim substantially coincided with the subject matter and objective of that dispute. Refusal concerned resubmission of an already pending demand, rather than a finding that XX lacked a right to legal protection. The court referred to its judgment of 8 June 2017 in the other case, which set aside the county court judgment of 3 October 2016 and remitted the case for reconsideration. The present ruling states that shared-property expenses are allocated in proportion to the owner’s share; a departure requires agreement by all owners. Calculation issues can be addressed when the related demands are heard. The circuit court suggested considering joinder of the two cases but did not join them by this ruling. The association’s monetary demand was not decided on its merits. Requests to restore the deadline for challenging the meeting decisions and to gather evidence were left undetermined, as the court did not consider those decisions’ validity decisive for this dispute. Appeal costs were imposed on XX without a specified amount.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss XX’s appeal; uphold the operative part of the ruling of 17 May 2017 with amended reasons. XX bears appeal costs. Neither the association’s monetary claim nor the validity of the meeting decisions was decided on its merits by this ruling.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Dismiss XX’s appeal against the ruling.
Appeal
Not prepared yet

· Case 2-16-19439 · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Case 2-15-123861Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 42 korteriühistu · 80175430

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayBills and justification of charges

Latest prepared act · · № 2-15-123861/23

How it started · editorial summary

The defendant tried to appeal a judgment under the simplified procedure; the circuit court found no grounds to admit the appeal.

Related prepared acts from this case are also shown.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 2
· RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-15-123861/23Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Kangelaste 42: appeal in a simplified-procedure case not accepted for proceedings

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Korteriühistu Kangelaste 42 · 80175430

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – Korteriühistu Kangelaste 42; Defendant and appellant XX

How it started · editorial summary

The defendant tried to appeal a judgment under the simplified procedure; the circuit court found no grounds to admit the appeal.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Tartu Ringkonnakohus refused to accept defendant XX’s appeal in the debt and late-payment interest claim brought by the apartment association Kangelaste 42. The appeal is deemed returned and not filed. This ruling concerns admission of the appeal, rather than a new award of debt. The county court had previously granted the claim and imposed costs on the defendant. It dealt with the case under the simplified procedure and did not grant leave to appeal. The defendant appealed; the ruling gives the appeal value as 391,48 euros. It does not disclose detailed arguments on the debt calculation or how that amount was split between demands. The circuit court explained that, in such a case, absence of county court permission does not unconditionally rule out an appeal. It may be accepted if the court clearly misapplied the law, seriously breached procedure or clearly misjudged evidence and this could substantially affect the result. The circuit court found no such grounds. It considered that the county court had sufficiently examined the defendant’s liability and had justifiedly granted the claim. Mere disagreement with the judgment was insufficient for admission of the appeal. This ruling sets no new monetary amounts or costs figure. The possibility of a further appeal to Riigikohus was explained separately.

Outcome of this decision

Refuse to accept XX’s appeal. It is deemed returned and not filed; this ruling makes no new recovery award.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Refuse to accept XX’s appeal for proceedings […]
Appeal
· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-123861/18Read act

Separate act page

Building charges and late-payment interest

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Korteriühistu Kangelaste 42 · 80175430

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Association — claimant; XX — defendant, owner

How it started · editorial summary

The court examined the building charges and the defendant’s objections about the calculations and payments.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Korteriühistu Kangelaste 42 (now — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 42 korteriühistu). Korteriühistu Kangelaste 42 sought building charges and late-payment interest from owner XX. The defendant disputed the supporting calculations and relied on payments made. The court found the claim supported by the association’s calculation and documents, and found no proof of overpayment.

Outcome of this decision

The operative part grants the claim, awards the debt and accrued late-payment interest, and orders 0.07% daily on unpaid principal from 1 February 2016 until payment. Costs are borne by the defendant; unpaid procedural costs attract interest from finality at the ECB rate specified in the judgment plus 8 percent annually.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Grant the claim.
First instance
Case 2-16-15739Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Soldina tn 2 korteriühistu · 80180921

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

How it started · editorial summary

The owner sought a declaration of no debt; the association did not respond to the claim and the court gave a default judgment.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-15739/22Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Tiimani 2: default judgment established no debt as at 1 January 2016

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Korteriühistu TIIMANI 2 · 80180921

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – owner XX; Defendant – Korteriühistu TIIMANI 2; Parties’ representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

The owner sought a declaration of no debt; the association did not respond to the claim and the court gave a default judgment.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court granted owner XX’s claim against the apartment association TIIMANI 2 by default and declared that, as at 1 January 2016, the claimant had no debt to the association for apartment maintenance and utilities. It did not grant the demand to require the association to recalculate charges as at a different date, 1 October 2016, as the method of performing the judgment. The claimant alleged that, after purchasing the apartment, the association had transferred the former owner’s debts to him. He said that he paid the principal in June 2016, but late-payment interest continued to accrue. He sought a declaration of no debt on the date stated in the claim and a change to the calculation of charges. The association received the claim documents and a warning about a possible default judgment but supplied no written response within the 14 days allowed. The court treated the claimant’s factual allegations as admitted under the default judgment rules and found a legal interest in deciding the debt question. The association was ordered to pay the claimant 135 euros in contractual representative’s costs. The court intended to recover the court fee, from which the claimant had previously been exempted, from the association for the state by a separate ruling; this judgment did not conclude that separate issue. The judgment was declared immediately enforceable. It does not establish absence of all debts on other dates or actual payment of the awarded costs.

Outcome of this decision

Declare that XX had no debt to the association as at 1 January 2016. Award XX 135 euros in costs against the association. Refuse the request to specify recalculation as at 1 October 2016 as the method of performance; recovery of the fee for the state is to be decided separately. The judgment is immediately enforceable.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
7. The judgment is immediately enforceable.
First instance
Case 2-16-17285Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Soldina tn 6 korteriühistu · 80175334

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayBills and justification of chargesObligations of multiple owners

How it started · editorial summary

The association did not clarify the defendants’ shares, the method of recovery or the debt calculation after the court requested it.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-17285/3Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Tiimani 6: claim not accepted for proceedings because allocation of debt between co-owners was unclear

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Tiimani 6 · 80175334

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — KÜ Tiimani 6; Two defendants XX — co-owners; Association’s representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association did not clarify the defendants’ shares, the method of recovery or the debt calculation after the court requested it.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court refused to accept for proceedings the apartment association Tiimani 6’s claim against two co-owners XX and ordered the application and attachments returned. The association did not clarify the claim and calculation within the time allowed. The court did not decide the existence of the debt on its merits. The association alleged utility debt with late-payment interest totalling 575,69 euros. The court stated that the application did not show the defendants’ ownership shares or how the association sought recovery: a common amount from either of them jointly and severally, or a specified part from each. The composition of the principal, the interest calculation and the charging period were also not explained. The court required the defects to be remedied within 20 days of service of the ruling. The association’s representative received it personally on 6 December 2016, but the association did not respond. The court considered that, without clarification of the basis of liability and allocation of the obligation, the requested result could not be achieved in the manner sought. Costs were left to the association; no reimbursement was ordered for the defendants. The association may separately request a refund of the 125 euro fee paid. This ruling does not itself order that refund.

Outcome of this decision

Refuse to accept for proceedings the claim and return the application and attachments to the association. The association bears the costs; no reimbursement was ordered for the defendants. Refund of the 125 euro fee may be sought by a separate application.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Leave procedural costs to KÜ Tiimani 6. There are no procedural costs reimbursable to the defendants.
First instance
Case 2-15-105517Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 10 korteriühistu · 80183397

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

How it started · editorial summary

The court examined limitation and the association’s calculations and dismissed the claim: the older part was time-barred, and the tables did not show debt for the rest.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-105517/55Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Võidu 10: claim dismissed because older demands were time-barred and calculations showed no debt

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Võidu 10 · 80183397

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — KÜ Võidu 10; Two defendants XX; Participants’ representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

The court examined limitation and the association’s calculations and dismissed the claim: the older part was time-barred, and the tables did not show debt for the rest.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court dismissed the apartment association Võidu 10’s debt and late-payment interest claim against two defendants XX. Limitation was applied to the older part of the claims; for the later period, the court found no debt on the dates examined according to the association’s tables. The association revised its calculation several times. One defendant argued that the principal had been paid, some claims were brought after limitation had expired, and payments exceeded charges during the remaining period. The second submitted no substantive response. The association submitted tables, but not the invoices themselves or information allowing the court to establish who made particular payments and when. The court found that claims for 1 May 2009 to 31 December 2011 had become time-barred before the application was filed in March 2015. The corresponding interest claims became time-barred together with the principal claim. For the later charges, the court examined payments and concluded that the association’s tables showed no debt either on 31 May 2015 or on 30 June 2016. Interest on this part was also found unjustified. The court stated that performance of a joint and several obligation by one debtor releases the others to the corresponding extent. No refund of an alleged overpayment was awarded to the defendants. The association was left to bear its own costs and ordered to bear the defendants’ costs. It was ordered to pay the state 348,24 euros for state legal aid within three months after the judgment entered into force. Actual payment of costs is not confirmed.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss the association’s claim against the two defendants XX. The association bears the costs; award the state 348,24 euros for legal aid, payable within three months after the judgment enters into force. No refund of overpayment to the defendants was ordered.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
4. Leave the claimant’s procedural costs entirely to the claimant.
First instance
Case 2-15-16874Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 49 korteriühistu · 80180192

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayBills and justification of chargesPayment accounting and set-offLimitation of claims

Latest prepared act · · № 2-15-16874/21

How it started · editorial summary

The claim against the new owner was partly granted: the oldest claims were excluded by limitation and interest was limited to the period of the buyer’s own delay.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 1 · Unprepared stages: 1
· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-16874/21Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Puškini 49: apartment buyer ordered to pay part of an earlier debt, with interest substantially limited

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Puškini 49 · OÜ Peremaakler · 80180192 · 11523072

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — KÜ Puškini 49; Defendant — apartment buyer OÜ Peremaakler

How it started · editorial summary

The claim against the new owner was partly granted: the oldest claims were excluded by limitation and interest was limited to the period of the buyer’s own delay.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Puškini 49 brought a claim for earlier utility debt and late-payment interest against OÜ Peremaakler, which had bought an apartment at auction. The court partly granted the claim, awarding 2615,28 euros in principal and 21,10 euros* in interest. Each participant bears its own costs, and the association must also pay the state a further 100 euros in missing fees. The association relied on the auction terms and the buyer’s awareness of the debt. The company disputed the calculations and invoked limitation; when paying, it specified the periods covered. An interim judgment of 19 April 2016 had already applied limitation to claims for 2004–2011. The present judgment concerns the remainder. The court proceeded from the company’s acknowledgement of debt from 2012 onwards and checked the charges and payment evidence for 2012 to February 2016. On reconciliation, it determined a balance of 2615,28 euros, accounting for paid invoices and an overpayment in one month. It did not accept the association’s calculation in full. The court rejected interest for the period before purchase on grounds of good faith: in this case, transfer of the principal obligation did not automatically entail liability for the previous owner’s delay. It calculated interest from 24 March 2015, the date on which it recognised the company as owner, using the invoices and its payment dates. The result was 21,10 euros*. The court determined the fee by adding principal and interest: the association had paid 400 euros instead of the 500 euros considered necessary by the court, so it was ordered to pay a further 100 euros. The act does not confirm actual performance of the awards.

Outcome of this decision

Award the association 2615,28 euros in debt and 21,10 euros* in late-payment interest against OÜ Peremaakler. Each party bears its own costs. The association must pay the state a further 100 euros in fees.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Partly grant KÜ Puškini 49’s claim.
First instance
Not prepared yet

· Case 2-15-16874 · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Case 2-15-110882Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

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

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayBills and justification of chargesApartment association board and managementAuthority and representation

How it started · editorial summary

Objections about authority and accounts did not remove the duty to pay established charges.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-110882/16Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Narva Sõbralik: objections to authority and charges

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Narva Sõbralik · 80245744

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — KÜ Narva Sõbralik; defendant — owner XX

How it started · editorial summary

Objections about authority and accounts did not remove the duty to pay established charges.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Narva Sõbralik (now — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 2a korteriühistu). KÜ Narva Sõbralik claimed management charges and late-payment interest from owner XX. The defendant disputed the signatory’s authority, the response deadline, the basis for the charge under the articles and the annual accounts. The court confirmed authority using a registry extract as at filing; the order admitting the claim provided a response period. The provision cited by the defendant concerned members’ rights rather than the disputed charge; other comments about accounts were considered irrelevant to this claim. The court found that the association had provided the necessary evidence and there were no substantive objections to the specific debt or calculation. The claim was allowed in simplified proceedings: debt, accrued late-payment interest, further late-payment interest under the operative part of 0.07% per day on principal from 1 August 2015 until payment, and the state fee were awarded. The court considered the objections filed; this was not a default judgment. Performance was not established.

Outcome of this decision

The claim was allowed after examination of the objections; debt, late-payment interest and the state fee were awarded.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Allow the claim of korteriühistu (KÜ) Narva Sõbralik (RK 80245744).
First instance
Case 2-15-13995Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Joala tn 5 korteriühistu · 80158985

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsObligations of multiple ownersBills and justification of chargesHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating charges

Latest prepared act · · № 2-15-13995/21

How it started · editorial summary

The e-toimik record of service on the representative determined the appeal period; the court rejected the asserted later date.

Related prepared acts from this case are also shown.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 2
· Court orderTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-15-13995/21Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Joala 5: appeal returned after the deadline

Court order · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Korteriühistu Joala 5 · 80158985

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Appellant, first-instance defendant — XX; Respondent, first-instance claimant — Korteriühistu Joala 5

How it started · editorial summary

The e-toimik record of service on the representative determined the appeal period; the court rejected the asserted later date.

The dispute and the court’s decision

In the debt dispute between Korteriühistu Joala 5 (now — Narva linn, Joala tn 5 korteriühistu) and XX, the first-instance court granted the claim and awarded costs on 03.02.2016. XX appealed. Tartu Ringkonnakohus refused to admit the appeal and returned it because it arrived after the deadline. The court found that the judgment was served on XX’s representative through the public e-toimik system on 03.02.2016. The thirty-day period began on 04.02.2016 and ended on 04.03.2016, while the appeal arrived on 06.03.2016. The representative’s asserted receipt date of 05.02.2016 was rejected as inconsistent with e-toimik records. The established date of service on the representative was decisive. Under the rule applied by the court, the returned appeal is treated as not filed. This act did not review the debt claim on its merits on appeal and does not establish actual recovery. An interlocutory appeal to Riigikohus within 15 days after service was explained, generally through a sworn advocate. The result of any such further application is unknown.

Outcome of this decision

Admission of the appeal against the judgment of 03.02.2016 was refused as late; the appeal was returned and is treated as not filed. The appellate court did not review the debt dispute on the merits. The subsequent outcome of the case is not established.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Refuse to admit XX’s appeal against the judgment of Viru Maakohus of 3 February 2016 and return the appeal to XX.
Appeal
· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-13995/16Read act

Separate act page

Co-owner’s obligation to pay building and heating charges

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Joala 5 · 80158985

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Association — claimant; XX — defendant, co-owner; XX — other co-owner, not joined as a third party

How it started · editorial summary

Pointing to another user of the apartment did not release the co-owner from building charges.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Joala 5 (now — Narva linn, Joala tn 5 korteriühistu). The court awarded KÜ Joala 5 unpaid heating, gas equipment maintenance and building maintenance charges against XX. XX argued that another co-owner used the services and was the association member. The court explained that selecting one co-owner to participate in the association does not release the others from charges. The unchallenged charging arrangement under the association’s decisions remained binding; actual use of the apartment was a matter between the co-owners.

Outcome of this decision

The claim was granted and the debt awarded against XX. The court did not decide the other co-owner’s liability; part-payment would reduce the outstanding common obligation. XX was also ordered to reimburse the association’s fee of 75 euros and representation costs of 255 euros.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Grant the claim.
First instance
Case 2-15-2902Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 7 korteriühistu · 80189247

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayBills and justification of chargesContracts and services

How it started · editorial summary

An established assignment does not replace proof of the late-payment interest calculation.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-2902/11Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Võidu 7: assignment of debt and inadequate calculation of some late-payment interest

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Auvõlg OÜ · KÜ Võidu 7 · 11901152 ·

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — assignee Auvõlg OÜ; defendant — owner XX; original creditor — KÜ Võidu 7

How it started · editorial summary

An established assignment does not replace proof of the late-payment interest calculation.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Võidu 7 assigned its management-charge claims against owner XX to Auvõlg OÜ. The court found the assignment, ownership and principal debt established; the new creditor could seek performance in place of the association. The defendant’s response was treated as a denial of the claim and the dispute was examined on its merits. The claim was allowed in part: principal, substantiated accrued late-payment interest and further late-payment interest of 0.07% per day on unpaid principal from 26 February 2015 until payment were awarded. Earlier late-payment interest was refused because the claim lacked a clear and unambiguous calculation. Costs were apportioned: 62% to the defendant and 38% to the company. The company was awarded 186 euros in state fees. An award does not establish actual payment.

Outcome of this decision

The new creditor was awarded principal and some late-payment interest; earlier late-payment interest was refused for inadequate calculation.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Allow the claim in part.
First instance
Case 2-14-52886Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 21 korteriühistu · 80228958

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsBills and justification of chargesDebt claims

Latest prepared act · · № 2-14-52886/42

How it started · editorial summary

The association acknowledged an accounting error in the charges.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 1 · Unprepared stages: 1
· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-52886/42Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Absence of debt and recalculation

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Tallinna mnt 21 Narva · 80228958

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — owner XX; defendant — KÜ Tallinna mnt 21 Narva

How it started · editorial summary

The association acknowledged an accounting error in the charges.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Tallinna mnt 21 Narva (now — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 21 korteriühistu). XX sought a declaration of no management-charge or utility debt to KÜ Tallinna mnt 21 Narva. The association acknowledged an accounting error; the court allowed the claim on admission. No debt was established for 10 October 2012–1 May 2014 as of 1 June 2014, and the association was ordered to recalculate that period. This does not excuse future payments. Costs were imposed on the association because it gave cause for proceedings. The award was 505 euros: a 175-euro fee and 330 euros in representation costs. Requested legal costs were reduced by 400 euros for drafting claims signed by the claimant and an application absent from the file. Costs concerning alleged court delay were not imposed on the opposing party.

Outcome of this decision

No debt declared for the specified period; association ordered to recalculate and reimburse 505 euros in costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Allow the claim by a judgment based on admission.
First instance
Not prepared yet

· Case 2-14-52886 · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal