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 2-14-311Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

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

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesWater and sewerageCalculation of water chargesRepairs and shared propertyBasement, stairwell and shared roomsOrganisation and funding of repairsPayment accounting and set-offLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

Latest prepared act · · № 2-14-311/35

How it started · editorial summary

The appeal court found sufficient evidence of the whole debt.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 2
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-14-311/35Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Repair and water-circulation charges

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Puškini 45A Korteriühistu · Täisühing Mašuk · 80250416 · 10444548

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and appellant — Puškini 45A Korteriühistu; defendant — Täisühing Mašuk

How it started · editorial summary

The appeal court found sufficient evidence of the whole debt.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Puškini 45A Korteriühistu (now — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 45a korteriühistu). Puškini 45A Korteriühistu claimed management charges from Täisühing Mašuk. The company disputed water-circulation, stairwell-repair and paving charges, relying on a separate entrance, and sought to offset courtyard-road costs. The county court awarded the admitted 257.26 euros, refusing the remainder and the set-off. The association appealed the refusal of 162.57 euros and costs; refusal of set-off was not reviewed. The circuit court considered meeting decisions, repair documents and the summer water-circulation methodology sufficient. A separate entrance did not remove common-cost obligations. The appeal succeeded: the total debt is 419.83 euros, including the earlier award. Costs in both instances were imposed on the company without fixing their monetary amount in this judgment.

Outcome of this decision

Appeal allowed; total debt 419.83 euros and costs in both instances borne by the company.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. Allow the appeal.
Appeal
· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-311/25Read act

Separate act page

Proof of building charges and set-off for courtyard road expenses

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Puškini 45A Korteriühistu · Täisühing MAŠUK · 80250416 · 10444548

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Association — claimant; Täisühing MAŠUK — defendant, non-residential unit owner

How it started · editorial summary

Initially, part of the charges and the amount of the proposed set-off were not proved. The later appeal assessed the principal-debt evidence differently and awarded the full principal; the set-off was not reconsidered.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Puškini 45A Korteriühistu (now — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 45a korteriühistu). Puškini 45A Korteriühistu sought 419.83 euros in principal and 6.34 euros in late-payment interest from Täisühing MAŠUK. The company admitted 257.26 euros, disputed water circulation charges and other items, and sought to set off 3 466.54 euros spent on a courtyard road. The court found invoices insufficient to prove all costs and their allocation. It accepted that the road works were necessary and that set-off was possible in principle, but the amount was supported only by the defendant’s calculation rather than cost documents. Later, on 16 October 2015, Tartu Ringkonnakohus reversed refusal of the remaining 162.57 euros in principal: total principal awarded became 419.83 euros instead of 257.26 euros. Täisühing MAŠUK bears costs in both instances. Refusal of the set-off was not appealed or reviewed.

Outcome of this decision

Initially, the admitted principal of 257.26 euros was awarded, the remaining claim and set-off were refused, and each party bore its own costs. On 16 October 2015, Tartu Ringkonnakohus reversed refusal of the remaining 162.57 euros in principal: total principal awarded became 419.83 euros instead of 257.26 euros. Täisühing MAŠUK bears all costs in both instances. Refusal of the set-off was not appealed or reviewed; this change did not award additional late-payment interest.

A checked extract in this language is not yet available.

First instance
Case 2-08-85420Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 17 korteriühistu · 80170377

Repairs and shared propertyBasement, stairwell and shared roomsAccess to premises for worksApartment association meetings and decisions

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

How it started · 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: 1 · Unprepared stages: 2
· 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.

How it started · 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.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
4. Allocate litigation costs in accordance with the settlement. […]
First instance
Not prepared yet

· Case 2-08-85420 · Tartu Ringkonnakohtu tsiviilkolleegium · Appeal

Not prepared yet

· Case 2-08-85420 · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Case 2-14-57931Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

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

How it started · 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.

How it started · 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.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Allow the appeal.
Appeal
Not prepared yet

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

Case 2-13-34554Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 44 korteriühistu · 80183227

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayBills and justification of chargesRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairsApartment association meetings and decisionsBudget, management plan and rates

Latest prepared act · · № 2-13-34554/54

How it started · editorial summary

The court added reasons to its earlier judgment in favour of the apartment association Tallinna 44: defendant XX was ordered to pay a 40-euro special contribution, 7,16 euros in late-payment interest and 190 euros in costs.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 1 · Unprepared stages: 1
· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-13-34554/54Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

A supplemented judgment explained the award of 40 euros for replacing electrical panels

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Tallinna 44 · 80183227

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant KÜ Tallinna 44 – sought the special contribution.; Defendant XX – disputed the basis for the contribution and late-payment interest.

How it started · editorial summary

The court added reasons to its earlier judgment in favour of the apartment association Tallinna 44: defendant XX was ordered to pay a 40-euro special contribution, 7,16 euros in late-payment interest and 190 euros in costs.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The association sought an unpaid special contribution for replacing electrical panels, set by the meeting of 4 May 2011. The defendant argued that an equal contribution was inconsistent with the floor-area allocation in the articles, that no separate decision authorised late-payment interest, and that less had been spent on the work than collected. On 11 July 2014, the court granted the claim in an abbreviated judgment. After the defendant announced an intention to appeal, the court added the account of the case and its reasons. The award remained unchanged. The court found that the decision establishing the contribution had not been challenged and remained binding on the defendant. The unpaid 40 euros was supported by the calculation, accounts and minutes. The defendant had attended the meeting and received invoices stating a payment deadline of 30 November 2011. A total of 4 400 euros was collected for replacing the panels and 3 669,31 euros spent. The court concluded that the balance had been carried into the following year’s plan; the defendant had not challenged the decisions approving the report and plan either. The court derived the board’s right to charge late-payment interest from the law, so it did not require a separate meeting decision. The award comprised a 40-euro contribution and 7,16 euros in late-payment interest as at 1 May 2013, totalling 47,16 euros. Costs awarded were 60 euros in court fees and 130 euros for legal assistance, totalling 190 euros. The part of the court fee paid above the necessary amount was not imposed on the defendant: the claimant was informed of the right to seek reimbursement from the state budget.

Outcome of this decision

Supplement the judgment of 11 July 2014 with an account of the case and reasons. Order defendant XX to pay the apartment association Tallinna 44 a debt of 40 euros, 7,16 euros in late-payment interest and 190 euros in costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Grant the claim.
First instance
Not prepared yet

· Case 2-13-34554 · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Case 2-08-12127Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 10 korteriühistu · 80038614

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesLate-payment interest and consequences of delayHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesRepairs and shared propertyRoof and atticOrganisation and funding of repairs

How it started · editorial summary

The court considered OÜ Filmarinar’s appeal against the Viru Maakohus judgment of 08.05.2012 on the apartment association Puškini 10’s claim for building management costs, earmarked contributions and late-payment interest. The claim after increases was 6 030,64 euros.

· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-08-12127/46Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Apartment association Puškini 10 v OÜ Filmarinar: award reduced, some utility costs unproven

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ Puškini 10 · OÜ Filmarinar · 80038614 · 10294341

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — KÜ Puškini 10; respondent to the appeal; defendant — OÜ Filmarinar; appellant; claimant’s representative XX — association’s statutory representative; defendant’s representative XX — company’s statutory representative

How it started · editorial summary

The court considered OÜ Filmarinar’s appeal against the Viru Maakohus judgment of 08.05.2012 on the apartment association Puškini 10’s claim for building management costs, earmarked contributions and late-payment interest. The claim after increases was 6 030,64 euros.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Puškini 10 sought payment from OÜ Filmarinar for building maintenance, earmarked contributions and services for the period from 1 March 2007 to 1 March 2011. After increases to the claim, the total was 6 030,64 euros. The association relied on an earlier agreement, meeting decisions, invoices and a schedule of charges. The defendant challenged the proof of costs, the documents and contractual grounds, as well as late-payment interest of 0,2% per day. On 8 May 2012, Viru Maakohus granted the claim in full. On the defendant’s appeal, the circuit court decided the case without remitting it to the first instance. It stated that an association member’s duty to pay for management of the building arises from the law; the existence of a document called an agreement does not itself make the relationship contractual. However, grounds for treating the earlier agreement as invalid or terminated had not been properly pleaded or proved in these proceedings. The court found the maintenance charge and earmarked roof repair contributions established by meeting decisions proven. For heating, waste collection and internet, however, the association’s invoices alone were insufficient: the actual costs and their allocation had to be proved. No additional evidence was submitted even after the appeal court invited it. That part of the claim was dismissed. The court also rejected the possibility of increasing by contract the statutory late-payment interest ceiling then applicable of 0,07% per day. The defendant’s allegations of damage were not determined as a counterclaim because no proper counterclaim had been filed. The appeal was partly allowed. The first-instance judgment was set aside, and a new judgment awarded 4 440,26 euros: 2 195,98 euros in principal and 2 244,28* euros in late-payment interest. Costs at both instances were allocated 73% to OÜ Filmarinar and 27% to the association.

Outcome of this decision

Set aside the Viru Maakohus judgment of 08.05.2012. Issue a new judgment partly granting the claim: order OÜ Filmarinar to pay the apartment association Puškini 10 a total of 4 440,26 euros for 01.03.2007–01.03.2011, comprising 2 195,98 euros in principal and 2 244,28* euros in late-payment interest. Partly allow the appeal. Allocate first-instance and appeal costs: 73% to OÜ Filmarinar and 27% to the apartment association Puškini 10.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. Partly allow OÜ Filmarinar’s appeal.
Appeal
Case 2-10-62881Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 11 korteriühistu · 80170839

Repairs and shared propertyRoof and atticContracts and servicesWorks contracts and designQuality and acceptance of worksPayment, advance payments and refundsDamage and insuranceDamage caused during repairsCause and proof of damageAmount of compensation

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought compensation for defective roof repairs; the contractor relied on having followed the agreed design. After an expert examination was ordered, the parties agreed on a smaller amount and instalments.

· Order approving a settlementViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-10-62881/47Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Puškini 11 and OÜ Lonstrong: settlement approved over damage following roof repairs

Order approving a settlement · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Puškini 11 · OÜ Lonstrong · 80170839 · 10632379

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant – KÜ Puškini 11; defendant – OÜ Lonstrong; parties’ legal and contractual representatives XX; expert XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought compensation for defective roof repairs; the contractor relied on having followed the agreed design. After an expert examination was ordered, the parties agreed on a smaller amount and instalments.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Puškini 11 brought a claim for 55 453,72 euros against OÜ Lonstrong following roof repairs. It relied on defects in the roofing and the damage they caused. The contractor initially disputed the claim, saying that the works followed the customer’s design documents, specifications and supervision instructions. During the proceedings, the parties raised the issue of an expert examination. The source records the contractor’s advance payment for it and receipt of an expert report. The order does not disclose the expert’s conclusions. The parties then agreed a settlement at the hearing instead of pursuing a decision on the merits. The defendant acknowledged the claim to the agreed extent and undertook to pay 31 955,82 euros. Of this, 19 955,82 euros was due by 15 November 2012, with the remaining 12 000 euros payable in twelve monthly instalments of 1 000 euros from December 2012 to November 2013. The association waived its remaining claims. The agreement resolved all disputes arising from the works contract of 9 April 2007. The court found no obstacle to approval, confirmed the agreed terms and terminated proceedings by its order of 12 October 2012. Each party bears its own costs; half the court fee, 2 236,91 euros, is to be returned to the association. The parties waived an appeal. This was an agreed resolution, rather than an independent judicial determination of the full amount of damage. The court did, however, examine the documentary evidence collected.

Outcome of this decision

Terminate proceedings and approve the settlement: OÜ Lonstrong is to pay the association 31 955,82 euros on the agreed schedule, and the association waives the remainder of its claims. All disputes under the contract of 09.04.2007 are resolved; each party bears its own costs. Reimburse the association 2 236,91 euros in court fees. The parties waived an appeal.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Terminate proceedings on the claim by KÜ Puškini 11 against OÜ Lonstrong for damages of 55 453.72 euros. […] 31 955 (thirty-one thousand nine hundred and fifty-five) euros and 82 cents. The claimant waives the remaining claims. […] 5. The parties waive the right to appeal the court ruling.
First instance
Case 2-08-53183Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 10 korteriühistu · 80038614

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesWater and sewerageCalculation of water chargesHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesRepairs and shared propertyRoof and atticOrganisation and funding of repairs

Latest prepared act · · № 2-08-53183/57

How it started · editorial summary

On rehearing, the company’s management-charge debt was proved.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 1 · Unprepared stages: 1
· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-08-53183/57Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Management charges of a non-residential owner

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Puškini 10 · OÜ Analan Auto · 80038614 · 10339202

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant on rehearing — KÜ Puškini 10; defendant and non-residential owner — OÜ Analan Auto; claimant representative XX; claimant adviser XX; defendant representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

On rehearing, the company’s management-charge debt was proved.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Puškini 10 (now — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 10 korteriühistu). KÜ Puškini 10 claimed management and utility charges from OÜ Analan Auto. On 14 May 2010 Tartu Ringkonnakohus overturned the initial refusal of 18 December 2009 and remitted the case to establish the amount of costs. On rehearing, the court examined the charter, tariff and roof-repair decisions, corrected bills and a consolidated calculation. The company disputed the basis of charges and treated its payments as water payments. The court affirmed the non-residential owner’s common-cost obligations, found the claim proved and found the alleged water payments unsupported by the required evidence. The claim was allowed for 3,114.73* euros. The new reasoning states that no late-payment interest was claimed. Costs were imposed on the company without fixing their amount separately.

Outcome of this decision

3,114.73* euros awarded; company bears costs, whose amount was not separately fixed.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Leave court costs with the defendant.
First instance
Not prepared yet

· Case 2-08-53183 · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Case 2-08-63694Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

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

Repairs and shared propertyFaçade, windows and balconiesOrganisation and funding of repairsApartment association bills, payments and debtsBills and justification of chargesDebt claimsApartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeBudget, management plan and ratesLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

How it started · editorial summary

An incorrect allocation method did not invalidate the entire repair decision.

· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-08-63694/26Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Repair contributions and allocation by area

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Korteriühistu Narva Sõbralik · 80245744

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and appellant — Korteriühistu Narva Sõbralik; defendant and respondent on appeal — XX; claimant representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

An incorrect allocation method did not invalidate the entire repair decision.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Korteriühistu Narva Sõbralik (now — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 2a korteriühistu). Korteriühistu Narva Sõbralik claimed earmarked facade and balcony repair contributions and late-payment interest from XX. The defendant disputed equal per-apartment contributions and the decision-making procedure. The county court refused the claim. The circuit court agreed that allocation contravened law and the charter but held only that part void, meaning legally ineffective: area-based allocation replaces it, while the decision to collect funds survives. Discussion of the management plan covered repairs and funding; defective notice was not established. Work and expenditure were proved. The share-based calculation exceeded the claim, so only the amount claimed was allowed and the refusal overturned. XX bears costs in both instances. A 2010 meeting decision provided an additional basis. The judgment does not endorse the original equal allocation or establish later payment.

Outcome of this decision

Refusal overturned and claim allowed within its limits; XX bears costs in both instances.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Allow the appeal.
Appeal