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 2-21-11708Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Soldina tn 18c korteriühistu · 80061091

Apartment association meetings and decisions

How it started · editorial summary

The applicant waived the challenge to the general meeting decision; the association did not oppose termination.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-21-11708/20Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

A-A. Tiimanni tn 18c: meeting decision dispute terminated after applicant waived the claim

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, A-A. Tiimanni tn 18c korteriühistu · 80061091

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — XX; Interested person — apartment association

How it started · editorial summary

The applicant waived the challenge to the general meeting decision; the association did not oppose termination.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Viru Maakohus terminated proceedings on XX’s application challenging Narva linn, A-A. Tiimanni tn 18c korteriühistu’s general meeting decision of 20 July 2021. The applicant waived the demand and the association did not object. The court accepted the waiver without deciding the meeting decision’s validity. The applicant had sought a finding of nullity, meaning absence of legal effect, or alternatively to set the decision aside. The waiver removed the need for the hearing scheduled the next day, and the court cancelled it. The court also explained that termination prevents the same demand being brought against the same participant on the same grounds again. Court costs were left to the applicant. However, the association said it did not seek its own costs, so no specific amount payable to the other participant was awarded. Refund of part of the state fee was left to a separate ruling after entry into force.

Outcome of this decision

Terminate proceedings, cancel the hearing and leave costs to the applicant. No costs amounts are reimbursable to the other participant. Decide the fee refund separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
4. There are no procedural costs reimbursable to the participants.
First instance
Case 2-20-10704Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 18 korteriühistu · 80015336

Documents and informationInspection and copies of documentsReporting and review of expenditureApartment association meetings and decisionsBudget, management plan and ratesVoting and representation

How it started · editorial summary

The association appealed against nullity of three written decision items due to lack of access to full financial documents.

· RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-20-10704/36Read actAppeal

Separate act page

A. Daumani tn 18: short report and plan did not replace access to full documents

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, A. Daumani tn 18 korteriühistu · 80015336

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicants — two owners XX; Interested person and appellant — apartment association

How it started · editorial summary

The association appealed against nullity of three written decision items due to lack of access to full financial documents.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Tartu Ringkonnakohus dismissed Narva linn, A. Daumani tn 18 korteriühistu’s appeal and upheld nullity of items 1, 5 and 13 of the decisions of 30 May 2020 concerning 2019 reporting, electricity rates and the 2020 management plan. Nullity means no legal effect from the outset. Rejection of the challenge to item 9 on replacing water risers was not appealed and, the court stated, had already become final. The decisions were adopted by written vote without a meeting. Two owners XX alleged lack of access to necessary documents. The association replied that a board report and work plan were placed in mailboxes, decisions were adopted by majority, and the audit report could be obtained. The circuit court accepted that the applicants could indeed inspect the audit report. But that did not cure the main defect: access to a legally compliant annual report and management plan was not ensured, nor were the place and procedure for inspection communicated. The brief documents distributed did not contain all the required information. In particular, the plan lacked projected utility volumes and costs; the board report did not replace a complete annual report. This prevented informed voting, including on electricity rates. The court explained that full documents need not be handed to everyone on paper: participants must be told how to inspect them. This also applies to written voting. The association’s argument that the applicants lacked financial knowledge did not limit their document rights. The first-instance costs allocation was retained: 80% to the association and 20% jointly and severally to applicants. Appeal costs were allocated to the association, with the amount set later.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss the association’s appeal and uphold the first-instance ruling. Allocate appeal costs to the association.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Dismiss Narva linna, A. Daumani tn 18 korteriühistu’s appeal against the ruling and uphold the Viru Maakohus ruling of 30 April 2021.
Appeal
Case 2-21-13043Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Soldina tn 18c korteriühistu · 80061091

Apartment association meetings and decisions

How it started · editorial summary

Six applicants and the association agreed acknowledgement of nullity of a decision adopted by written vote.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-21-13043/6Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

A-A. Tiimanni 18c: written decision declared void under the parties’ agreement

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, A-A. Tiimanni 18c korteriühistu · 80061091

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicants — six individuals XX; Interested person — apartment association

How it started · editorial summary

Six applicants and the association agreed acknowledgement of nullity of a decision adopted by written vote.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Viru Maakohus approved the settlement between six applicants XX and Narva linn, A-A. Tiimanni 18c korteriühistu, declared the decision of 21 June 2021 void and terminated proceedings. The decision had been adopted without convening a general meeting. Nullity means that it creates no legal effects from the outset. The association accepted the applicants’ nullity request and participants jointly sought confirmation of that outcome. They submitted a signed agreement and did not consider a hearing necessary for approval. The court found the agreement admissible. The ruling does not describe the specific breaches originally alleged; the case ended because agreement was reached. Each participant bears their own costs. The court ordered a 25 euro refund to the applicants, half the fee paid. Under a term agreed by the parties and accepted by the court, the period for appeal against the ruling was shortened to one day after service. Actual refund and subsequent proceedings are not confirmed in this text.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the settlement, declare the association’s decision of 21 June 2021 void and terminate proceedings. Leave costs to participants; refund the applicants a 25 euro fee.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
4. Terminate the proceedings in civil case No 2-21-13043.
First instance
Case 2-20-5373Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12 korteriühistu · 80175498

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeVoting and representationDocuments and informationInspection and copies of documentsReporting and review of expenditure

How it started · editorial summary

The association appealed the declaration that meeting decisions were void. The circuit court gave decisive weight to applicant XX’s representative having read the materials beforehand and attended the meeting.

· RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-20-5373/28Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Kangelaste prospekt 12: circuit court reversed declaration that meeting decisions were void

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12 korteriühistu · 80175498

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant XX – challenged meeting decisions; interested person and appellant against the ruling – Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12 korteriühistu; applicant’s and association’s representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association appealed the declaration that meeting decisions were void. The circuit court gave decisive weight to applicant XX’s representative having read the materials beforehand and attended the meeting.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The circuit court reversed the declaration that meeting decisions were void and dismissed XX’s application; each party was left to bear its own costs. Applicant XX sought a declaration that decisions of the apartment association Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12 meeting of 12 March 2020 were void, meaning without legal effect from adoption. XX relied on failure to send the invitation and materials to an email address known to the association, absence of detailed access arrangements and overly short time for viewing documents. The association objected that the representative initially supplied no power of attorney but later received the documents and participated in the meeting. Viru Maakohus granted the application and imposed costs on the association. The association appealed. The circuit court accepted that it should have sent the invitation and papers to the known address on its own initiative. Nullity, however, required a substantial defect in meeting preparation that prevented the participant from learning of the meeting and preparing to vote. Here the applicant knew the meeting’s time and place. The representative received the necessary papers beforehand through another owner represented, read them, participated and stated objections. The court therefore did not regard failure to send the applicant a separate letter as substantially limiting those opportunities. Refusal to show documents to a person without authority also did not establish the alleged ground of nullity. Failure to explain the need for a power of attorney and allowing one hour for inspection did not change that finding. On 2 July 2021, the circuit court allowed the association’s appeal, reversed the nullity declaration and dismissed the application. Each participant bears its own costs at both levels: the association could have avoided the dispute by sending materials properly. The court thus found a breach of the duty to send documents but not the substantial impact needed for the outcome sought.

Outcome of this decision

Set aside the Viru Maakohus ruling of 11.05.2021 insofar as it granted the application, declared the meeting decisions of 12.03.2020 void and addressed association costs. Issue a new ruling dismissing the application. Allow the appeal; each participant bears its own first-instance and circuit court costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Allow the appeal against the ruling.
Appeal
Case 2-20-100537Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu · 80183301

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayParking and groundsConstruction of parking facilitiesApartment association meetings and decisionsBudget, management plan and rates

How it started · editorial summary

The participants confirmed payment of the principal claim, after which the association withdrew its application. The court approved a separate agreement for an additional 100 euros in costs.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-20-100537/18Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

P. Kerese tn 6: court approved a 100 euro costs agreement after debt payment

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu · 80183301

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu; interested person XX — debtor and party to the costs agreement; association’s representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

The participants confirmed payment of the principal claim, after which the association withdrew its application. The court approved a separate agreement for an additional 100 euros in costs.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court terminated the case after confirmed payment of the principal claim and approved an agreement for an additional 100 euros in costs to the association. The apartment association Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 sought debt and late-payment interest from participant XX. The dispute concerned earmarked contributions for a car park. After an objection in payment order proceedings, the case was transferred to Viru Maakohus. XX attempted a counter-application challenging transactions based on meeting decisions; admission was refused and the circuit court upheld that refusal. The association and XX then reported satisfaction of the claim on 17 March 2021. Their consistent reports stated that principal, late-payment interest and previously claimed costs had been paid. The association withdrew its monetary demand, and participants submitted a separate agreement on remaining court costs. Under that agreement, XX must pay the association an additional 100 euros by 31 May 2021. XX bears their own costs. The participants confirmed understanding the consequences of termination and waived appeal against the ruling. On 22 March 2021 the court accepted withdrawal of the application on the paid claim, approved the costs agreement and terminated proceedings. It found no conflict with the law or good morals. It did not separately allocate or determine recoverable costs because the amount and payment arrangements were already agreed. Principal and previously paid costs are not awarded again. The act does not confirm performance of the new 100 euro obligation.

Outcome of this decision

Accept the association’s withdrawal of the paid debt application. Approve the agreement: XX pays the association 100 euros in costs by 31.05.2021 and bears their own costs. Terminate proceedings; do not determine costs separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. Terminate proceedings in civil case No 2 -20-100537 on Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu’s debt application against XX.
First instance
Case 2-16-16599Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu · 80189721

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesApartment association meetings and decisionsBudget, management plan and ratesContracts and servicesTenancy and leaseRepairs and shared propertyBasement, stairwell and shared roomsLimitation of claims

Latest prepared act · · № 2-16-16599/43

How it started · editorial summary

The dispute concerned the basis for extra charges for the shared staircase and the floor area used to charge heating for non-residential premises.

Related prepared acts from this case are also shown.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 3 · Unprepared stages: 1
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-16-16599/43Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Brainella: association decisions did not support additional stair-use and heating charges

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Osaühing Brainella · Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu · 10294480 · 80189721

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and appellant – Osaühing Brainella; Defendant – Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The dispute concerned the basis for extra charges for the shared staircase and the floor area used to charge heating for non-residential premises.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The circuit court granted Osaühing Brainella’s claim in full, declaring no obligation to pay the disputed rent and no additional heating debt. Osaühing Brainella sought a declaration that it did not have to pay rent or the disputed extra heating charge to the apartment association at A. Puškini tn 12. The company owned non-residential premises. The association charged for use of a separated stair section and calculated heating over a larger area. The company objected that no lease existed and heating should be charged for its premises’ area of 88,4 m². The association argued that the extra charges were based on general meeting decisions and use of the separated staircase expressed consent to the charge. On rehearing, Viru Maakohus confirmed there was no contract but found a payment duty based on meeting decisions. The company appealed dismissal of the rest of its demands. Tartu Ringkonnakohus agreed that an owners’ majority can in principle decide ordinary management of shared property. However, these particular decisions had been adopted with the 2004, 2005 and 2010 management plans and applied within those respective years. The association did not establish a basis for the disputed charges in later years. The circuit court granted the claim in full. It declared no lease relationship or rent obligation and that heating from 28 February 2011 to 31 January 2016 was payable on an area of 88,4 m². The company did not owe 285,63 euros in heating debt as at 31 January 2016. All litigation costs at both levels were imposed on the association, to be quantified by the county court after finality. No demand to demolish the partition was decided in this case.

Outcome of this decision

Grant Brainella’s claim in full: no lease relationship or rent payment duty exists; heating for the stated period is calculated on 88,4 m²; no debt of 285,63 euros is owed. The association bears costs at both levels, to be quantified separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2.1. Grant the claim by osaühing Brainella against Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu.
Appeal
· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-16599/37Read act

Separate act page

Charges for part of a stairwell and heating: the basis of charges and later reversal

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Osaühing Brainella · Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu · 10294480 · 80189721

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — Osaühing Brainella; Defendant — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

Osaühing Brainella challenged charges for using and heating part of a stairwell. The first-instance court declared only that no lease existed; the appellate court later granted all claims, reversing the refusals and the costs allocation.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Osaühing Brainella sought declarations against Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu that no lease existed and no payment was owed for part of a stairwell. It also sought heating calculations based only on 88.4 m² and a declaration that 285.63 euros was not owed for 28.02.2011–31.01.2016. Invoices included a monthly charge of 15.98 euros. The case was being reheard after reversal and remittal of an earlier judgment. The court found no evidence of a lease and granted that declaration. However, additional charges could arise from owners’ resolutions governing use of common property rather than a contract. Calling a charge rent did not change its legal basis. The company did not deny exclusive use of part of the stairwell. The relevant resolutions had not been invalidated, and the court found no grounds of nullity. It therefore refused a declaration of no payment duty. It also rejected the requested heating-area declaration and the related claim that 285.63 euros was not owed. This judgment did not itself award that sum for enforcement. The association must bear 25% of the company’s costs and the company 75% of the association’s costs, with amounts determined separately. Later, on 26 February 2021, Tartu Ringkonnakohus reversed the refusal of the remaining claims and the costs allocation, granting the claim in full. It held that the earlier tariffs applied only in the relevant financial years and that no basis for the additional charge after 2010 had been proved. It declared that the disputed charge was not payable, heating for 28.02.2011–31.01.2016 was payable on an area of 88.4 m², and the heating debt of 285.63 euros did not exist as at 31.01.2016. The association bears costs at both levels, with amounts to be fixed separately.

Outcome of this decision

Initially, the court declared that no lease existed and rejected the remaining claims; it did not award 285.63 euros, and costs were allocated 25%/75%. On 26 February 2021, Tartu Ringkonnakohus reversed the refusals and the costs allocation: it declared that the disputed charge was not payable, heating for 28.02.2011–31.01.2016 was payable on an area of 88.4 m², and the heating debt of 285.63 euros did not exist as at 31.01.2016. The association bears costs at both levels, with amounts to be fixed separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Declare that OÜ Brainella and Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu have no obligations arising from a rental or lease agreement.
First instance
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-16-16599/17Read act

Separate act page

Stairwell and heating charges: judgment reversed and case remitted

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Osaühing Brainella · Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu · 10294480 · 80189721

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Defendant and appellant — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu; Claimant and respondent on appeal — Osaühing Brainella

How it started · editorial summary

The association appealed a declaration that the company owed no stairwell and heating debt. The appellate court reversed for inadequate examination of the basis and calculation and remitted the case.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Osaühing Brainella sought a declaration that it owed Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu nothing for use and heating of a separated part of a stairwell. Its claim was clarified to 1354.51 euros. It disputed a 15.98 euros monthly charge and additional floor area used for heating. The first-instance court granted the claim and the association appealed. Tartu Ringkonnakohus found the claim’s scope, the charges’ legal basis and their amount inadequately examined. Absence of a proved lease did not yet exclude a possible charge under owners’ resolutions on common-property use. Those resolutions should not simply have been disregarded. The amended claim’s limits and burden of proof also required clarification. The court rejected the association’s limitation objection to the declaration claim itself. Its position might have a different significance for its monetary claim, but neither debt nor its absence was finally established. The 16.01.2018 judgment was reversed and the case remitted to the same court, with costs to follow the rehearing’s result. Success on appeal was not an award or cancellation of the disputed sum.

Outcome of this decision

The association’s appeal was granted. Viru Maakohus’s judgment of 16.01.2018 was reversed and the case remitted. The basis and amount of charges require further examination; no final debt was established. The first-instance court will decide costs according to the further outcome.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Grant the appeal. […] Reverse Viru Maakohus’s judgment of 16 January 2018. Remit the case to Viru Maakohus for rehearing.
Appeal
Not prepared yet

· Case 2-16-16599 · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Case 2-19-9699Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Rakvere tn 20, Rakvere tn 20a, Rakvere tn 20b, Rakvere tn 20c korteriühistu · 80180335

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeDocuments and informationInspection and copies of documentsBudget, management plan and ratesReporting and review of expenditure

Latest prepared act · · № 2-19-9699/41

How it started · editorial summary

The court distinguished breach of the duty to send documents from a material breach making meeting decisions void.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 2
· RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-19-9699/41Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Rakvere 20–20c: failure to email documents did not make meeting decisions void

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, Rakvere tn 20, Rakvere tn 20a, Rakvere tn 20b, Rakvere tn 20c korteriühistu · 80180335

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant and appellant — XX; Respondent — Narva linn, Rakvere tn 20, Rakvere tn 20a, Rakvere tn 20b, Rakvere tn 20c korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The court distinguished breach of the duty to send documents from a material breach making meeting decisions void.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The circuit court dismissed XX’s appeal and upheld refusal to declare the meeting decisions void, meaning without effect from adoption. Applicant XX sought nullity of the general meeting decisions of 29 April 2019 of Narva linn, Rakvere tn 20, Rakvere tn 20a, Rakvere tn 20b, Rakvere tn 20c korteriühistu. The dispute concerned the annual report, repairs, management plan and reserve capital. The applicant alleged defective convening: notice and materials had not been sent to the email address previously supplied. The association replied that documents were available on noticeboards. The county court rejected the application. Tartu Ringkonnakohus examined the appeal on its merits and upheld that result. It confirmed that the association had to send notice and materials to the supplied address and had breached that duty. However, nullity follows from a material breach of convening rules, not every departure. Here the applicant knew of the meeting, the notice stated where and how to inspect materials, and the same documents had been on noticeboards in advance. The court found a real opportunity to examine and understand them without additional expense. Non-receipt by email therefore did not materially restrict rights. The circuit court separately clarified that attendance and voting alone do not cure a material breach or automatically approve the decisions. It dismissed the appeal and allocated appeal costs to the applicant; the county court will determine the amount after the final act enters into force.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss XX’s appeal and uphold the county court ruling of 20 March 2020. The applicant bears appeal costs, with the amount set separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Uphold the Viru Maakohus ruling of 20 March 2020.
Appeal
· Court orderViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-19-9699/34Read act

Separate act page

Meeting documents by email: a breach without nullity of the resolutions

Court order · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Rakvere tn 20, Rakvere tn 20a, Rakvere tn 20b, Rakvere tn 20c korteriühistu · 80180335

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — XX; Person concerned — Narva linn, Rakvere tn 20, Rakvere tn 20a, Rakvere tn 20b, Rakvere tn 20c korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

XX challenged resolutions because documents were not emailed. The court recognised the duty to send them but found no material obstruction to preparation or participation and refused the application.

The dispute and the court’s decision

XX sought a declaration that four resolutions of Narva linn, Rakvere tn 20, Rakvere tn 20a, Rakvere tn 20b, Rakvere tn 20c korteriühistu made on 29.04.2019 were void: those on the report, repairs, management plan and reserve capital. The complaint was that notice and documents had not been sent to the email address notified to the association. The association relied on noticeboards and its lack of a computer. The court found that XX had previously supplied an address. Notification before the new law entered into force did not remove the duty to use known contact details. The absence of a computer was not an excuse. It separately examined whether the breach materially affected participation in decision-making. In this case, documents were on noticeboards, XX knew about the meeting, could inspect drafts and acknowledged attending. Objection to taking the decisions at the meeting was not proved. The court therefore found no ground of nullity and refused the application. It did not examine the substantive legality of each resolution as a separate invalidation claim. Costs were imposed on XX, with their amount to be determined separately.

Outcome of this decision

The request to declare the 29.04.2019 resolutions void was refused. The court found a breach of the electronic-delivery duty but did not consider it sufficiently material on these facts to cause nullity. XX bears costs, with their amount determined separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Order the applicant to bear the procedural costs.
First instance
Case 2-19-18809Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 43 korteriühistu · 80274757

Apartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the boardApartment association meetings and decisionsQuorum and repeat meetingsArticles of association and amendments

How it started · editorial summary

The board registration dispute depended on which version of the articles determined the meeting quorum.

· RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-19-18809/8Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Kangelaste prospekt 43: refusal to amend board details set aside

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 43 korteriühistu · 80274757

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant and appellant — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 43 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The board registration dispute depended on which version of the articles determined the meeting quorum.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The circuit court set aside refusal to amend board details for the apartment association Kangelaste prospekt 43 and remitted the entry question to the registry department. Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 43 korteriühistu sought removal of two board members’ details and amendment of the end dates for three others. The registry department refused, considering that the deciding meeting lacked the required majority. The association objected that an earlier version of the articles had been applied. Tartu Ringkonnakohus allowed the appeal and remitted the entry question. It found that the 2011 meeting had adopted articles with a quorum, meaning the required attendance, of at least one third of members or representatives. A later meeting changed only the board’s term. Yet the 2016 application attached a text with wider changes, including the former requirement for more than half the members. Attaching that text without a corresponding meeting decision does not make those provisions part of the articles. The circuit court directed that the 2011 one-third rule be used for quorum and that the current version of the articles be established. The registry file also contained powers of attorney in Russian: the applicant must be given time to supply an Estonian translation by a sworn translator. The appeal ruling does not itself amend the board details or complete registration. It sets aside refusal and requires reconsideration using the proper articles and documents. Costs remain with the applicant; because the appeal succeeded, a fee refund may be requested separately.

Outcome of this decision

Allow the appeal and set aside the registry department’s refusal of 8 November 2019. Remit the entry question for reconsideration; this act does not make the entry itself.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Allow Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 43 korteriühistu’s appeal against the ruling.
Appeal
Case 2-17-19501Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 42 korteriühistu · 80175430

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayPayment accounting and set-offApartment association meetings and decisionsQuorum and repeat meetingsBills and justification of chargesBudget, management plan and rates

Latest prepared act · · № 2-17-19501/86

How it started · editorial summary

The circuit court examined special appeal admission conditions in a case involving a small claim.

Related prepared acts from this case are also shown.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 2
· RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-17-19501/86Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Kangelaste 42: appeal refused admission in a simplified case

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 circuit court examined special appeal admission conditions in a case involving a small claim.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The circuit court refused to admit XX’s appeal in the apartment association Kangelaste 42’s simplified case, finding no grounds for admission. Korteriühistu Kangelaste 42 had obtained an award of management cost debt and accrued late-payment interest against defendant XX in the county court. Further statutory late-payment interest on principal was also awarded and costs allocated to the defendant. XX appealed, alleging breaches of legal rules, and requested state legal aid. Tartu Ringkonnakohus was deciding whether to admit the appeal. The case concerned a small monetary claim under the simplified procedure, subject to special appeal conditions. The court checked for an obvious misapplication of law, material procedural breaches or clearly incorrect assessment of evidence capable of affecting the outcome. The circuit court found none. It considered that the county court had examined charges, facts and evidence in detail and applied the relevant rules. The defendant’s disagreement with the outcome alone did not suffice for admission. The court refused to admit the appeal and deemed it returned to the applicant. This is an appeal admission ruling, not a new award of the same sums. The legal aid application was left undecided. The unpaid appeal fee was not required because the appeal was not admitted. A separate possibility to challenge the refusal itself is provided.

Outcome of this decision

Refuse to admit XX’s appeal and deem it returned. Leave the state legal aid application undecided; no fee is payable for the appeal that was not admitted.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Refuse to admit XX’s appeal against the Viru Maakohus judgment of 26 February 201 9 and deem the appeal returned to XX.
Appeal
· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-19501/82Read act

Separate act page

Association debt: crediting payments and interest across different periods

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 42 korteriühistu · 80175430

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 42 korteriühistu; Defendant — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought debt and late-payment interest. XX challenged the calculation, payment allocation and tariff resolutions. The court found the calculation proved and granted the claim.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 42 korteriühistu, formerly KÜ KANGELASTE 42, sought management and utility debt with late-payment interest from XX. XX accepted a general duty to contribute but disputed the amount, citing missing emailed invoices, unclear tariffs, defects in repeat meetings and incorrect crediting of payments. The court compared invoices, the consolidated calculation and payment records. The association agreed to apply payments to principal for the months specified by XX, and the court found this reflected in the final calculation. Objections to tariff resolutions did not establish nullity or timely challenge; the court treated the resolutions as valid. Accrued late-payment interest was checked separately for periods before and after the 2018 legislative change and found substantiated. The claim was granted: principal, accrued late-payment interest and continuing late-payment interest on unpaid principal from 1 January 2019 at the ECB rate determined for each half-year plus 8 percent annually were awarded until principal is paid. Costs were imposed on XX, with their amount to be determined separately. Actual payment of the award was not established.

Outcome of this decision

The claim was granted: the association was awarded principal, accrued late-payment interest and continuing late-payment interest on unpaid principal from 1 January 2019 at the ECB rate determined for each half-year plus 8 percent annually until principal is paid. XX bears their own and the association’s costs, the latter to be fixed separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Grant the claim.
First instance
Case 2-17-16823Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu · 80183301

Parking and groundsUse of shared landConstruction of parking facilitiesApartment association meetings and decisionsVoting and representation

Latest prepared act · · № 2-17-16823/53

How it started · editorial summary

Refusal to declare the parking decision void was upheld; land-use arrangements were not decided separately.

Related prepared acts from this case are also shown.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 2
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-17-16823/53Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Kerese 6: meeting decision on parking not declared void

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu · 80183301

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and appellant – XX; Defendant – Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

Refusal to declare the parking decision void was upheld; land-use arrangements were not decided separately.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Tartu Ringkonnakohus dismissed XX’s appeal and upheld the refusal to declare the Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu meeting decision of 13 April 2016 void. Nullity would mean no legal effect from adoption; that specific demand was not granted. The meeting decided to organise car parking on the green area behind the building. The claimant considered this construction of a car park involving tree felling and concreting, requiring all owners’ consent. She also relied on the lack of the necessary quorum. The association objected that organising parking was ordinary use of the land around the building and could be decided by majority. The circuit court considered that the wording adopted was not yet a decision to build a car park and substantially alter the intended use of shared property. The claimant had not demonstrated grounds for nullity under the provisions on general meeting decisions. The court also stated that breach of co-owner consent rules does not itself make a meeting decision void. The circuit court nevertheless corrected one first-instance argument. A court may and must check whether a statutory prohibition making the decision void was breached; it cannot confine itself to the label given to the demand. In this case, however, that examination did not change the outcome. The claimant had not brought a demand against the other owners to determine arrangements for use of the shared land, including tree felling. The first-instance costs allocation was upheld, and appeal costs were imposed on the claimant. The county court will quantify them separately. The judgment concerns the specific meeting wording and ground of nullity raised; no separate demand on land-use arrangements was determined here.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss XX’s appeal and leave the Viru Maakohus judgment of 8 June 2018 unchanged. Retain the previous costs allocation; the claimant bears appeal costs, to be quantified by the county court.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Leave the Viru Maakohus judgment of 8 June 2018 unchanged.
Appeal
· JudgmentViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-17-16823/35Read act

Separate act page

Parking on green space: limits of a meeting resolution

Judgment · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu · 80183301

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — XX; Defendant — Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

XX sought nullity of a resolution to arrange parking behind the building. The court refused and stressed that the wording did not itself decide to build a parking area.

The dispute and the court’s decision

XX challenged the 13.04.2016 resolution of Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu to arrange parking on green space behind the building. XX considered it a material change in the shared land’s purpose requiring all owners’ consent. The association regarded resident parking as ordinary use. The court addressed nullity specifically and found no convening defect or other applicable ground. A possible breach of shared-property management rules did not itself make the resolution void. A separate claim for invalidation on other grounds was not determined here. Nor did the court find that the wording already meant construction of a parking area: paving, tree removal or other specific works were not identified. The materials did not prove a material change of purpose. The claim was dismissed and costs imposed on XX, with their amount to be determined separately. The act is not permission for any works and does not allocate individual parking spaces.

Outcome of this decision

The claim to declare the 13.04.2016 resolution void was dismissed. The court did not find that construction had already been approved. XX bears their own and the association’s costs, the latter to be fixed separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Dismiss XX’s claim against Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu to declare the general meeting resolution of 13.04.2016 void.
First instance
Case 2-18-625Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 3 korteriühistu · 80162521

Apartment association meetings and decisions

How it started · editorial summary

The company waived its demand for a declaration that part of the meeting decision was void; the court concluded the case.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-18-625/16Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kangelaste 3: dispute over nullity of a meeting decision ended after waiver of the claim

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

OÜ Rosehill · Korteriühistu Kangelaste 3 · 10972543 · 80162521

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – OÜ Rosehill; Defendant – Korteriühistu Kangelaste 3

How it started · editorial summary

The company waived its demand for a declaration that part of the meeting decision was void; the court concluded the case.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court terminated OÜ Rosehill’s case against Korteriühistu Kangelaste 3 after the company waived its demand. The company had sought a declaration of partial nullity of the general meeting decision of 4 October 2017, meaning no legal effect for the challenged part from adoption. On 11 September 2018, the claimant applied to end the case and requested reimbursement of half the court fee. The association agreed to termination. The court accepted the waiver and ordered a refund to the company of 150 euros out of the 300-euro fee paid. This ruling does not disclose the substance of the challenged part or why the demand was waived. It did not establish nullity of the meeting decision. The court explained a different consequence of accepting the waiver: the same claimant cannot bring the same claim against the same defendant on the same grounds again.

Outcome of this decision

Accept the waiver and terminate proceedings. Order a court fee refund of 150 euros to OÜ Rosehill.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Terminate proceedings on the claim by OÜ Rosehill against Korteriühistu Kangelaste 3 […]
First instance
Case 2-17-10653Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 33 korteriühistu · 80082986

Apartment association meetings and decisionsWater and seweragePipes, risers and sewerageContracts and servicesWorks contracts and designRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairs

Latest prepared act · · № 2-17-10653/27

How it started · editorial summary

The circuit court examined the reopening application instead of leaving it unexamined, but found no grounds to reopen the case.

Related prepared acts from this case are also shown.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 2 · Unprepared stages: 1
· RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-17-10653/27Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 33: reopening application examined, but case not reopened

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 33 korteriühistu · 80082986

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and appellant — XX; Defendant — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 33 korteriühistu (also called Korteriühistu Punane Maja)

How it started · editorial summary

The circuit court examined the reopening application instead of leaving it unexamined, but found no grounds to reopen the case.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Tartu Ringkonnakohus changed the procedural outcome but did not reopen XX’s case against Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 33 korteriühistu. Instead of leaving the reopening application unexamined, it examined and rejected it. The main claim remained unexamined. The claimant challenged meeting decisions of 10 May 2017 on replacing water pipes using an unnamed company, owners providing telephone numbers, and a contract with a lawyer. The court initially granted the claim by default but reopened proceedings after the association applied to set aside the default judgment (kaja). The claimant and representative then failed to attend the hearing on 15 May 2018. At the association’s request, the court left the claim unexamined. The claimant requested reopening, arguing that the representative had not been sent a separate summons and therefore did not know about the hearing. The claimant also denied that the association had requested leaving the claim unexamined. The association opposed the appeal, arguing among other things that it was late. The circuit court found that the summons was sent to the claimant before the court was notified of the representative. The claimant received it personally, and on the day the representative notified the court of their authority, the representative obtained electronic access to all materials, including the summons. In those circumstances, the court did not have to send the same summons again. The association’s request to leave the claim unexamined was recorded in the minutes. The claimant did not substantiate a valid reason for absence or an inability to report it in time. However, the court found it wrong to refuse to examine the reopening application merely because it had been filed before the ruling was put in writing: the participant already knew the decision announced at the hearing. It remedied the defect itself, examined the application and refused reopening. The remainder was upheld and appeal costs allocated to the claimant; the county court will determine the amount separately. The meeting decisions’ validity was not determined on the merits by this ruling.

Outcome of this decision

Set aside the ruling of 25 May 2018 only insofar as it left the reopening application unexamined. Issue a new ruling in that part refusing reopening. Uphold the remainder; XX bears appeal costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. Uphold the county court’s ruling in all other respects.
Appeal
· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-10653/23Read act

Separate act page

Non-attendance: an association dispute left unexamined

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 33 korteriühistu · 80082986

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — XX; Defendant — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 33 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

After XX did not attend, the claim against the association was left unexamined. The appellate court later changed only the ruling on restoration: it examined and refused that request without deciding the meeting-resolution dispute on its merits.

The dispute and the court’s decision

XX sued Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 33 korteriühistu, formerly Korteriühistu Punane Maja, to invalidate meeting resolutions of 10.05.2017. The preserved subsequent order states that the disputed resolutions concerned a contract to replace water pipes, requiring owners to provide telephone numbers, and a contract for legal services. After XX and their representative did not attend, the court granted the association’s request to leave the claim unexamined. XX objected that the representative had not received a separate summons and the case could not be disposed of this way. The court found that XX had personally received the summons before notifying a new representative. Documents, including the summons, were then made available to the representative electronically. The court considered notice proper. The hearing record confirmed the association’s request, so the court had not acted of its own initiative. No sufficient excuse for absence or request to hear the case without XX was established. The objection was rejected. The restoration request was left unexamined as filed before a written order and its service. The claim itself was also left unexamined, not dismissed on its merits. Costs were imposed on XX, to be fixed separately. Later, on 3 September 2018, Tartu Ringkonnakohus changed only the ruling on the request to restore proceedings: the request had to be examined, but was refused. The claim remained unexamined, the other parts of the order were upheld, and XX bears the appeal costs.

Outcome of this decision

Initially, the procedural objection was refused and the restoration request and claim were left unexamined. On 3 September 2018, Tartu Ringkonnakohus changed only the restoration ruling: the request was examined but refused. The other parts of the order, including leaving the claim unexamined, were upheld. XX bears appeal costs; the substantive validity of the meeting resolutions was not decided.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Leave XX’s application of 17 May 2018 to restore proceedings unexamined.
First instance
Not prepared yet

· Case 2-17-10653 · Viru Maakohus · First instance