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 2-22-670Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Soldina tn 4 korteriühistu · 80175156

Apartment association meetings and decisionsVoting and representationQuorum and repeat meetingsArticles of association and amendmentsApartment association board and managementAuthority and representationParking and groundsConstruction of parking facilities

How it started · editorial summary

Applicant XX challenged written decisions for lack of unanimity and board authority; the association agreed with the application.

· Ruling on an application challenging general meeting decisionsViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-22-670/11Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Soldina tn 4: request to declare written decisions void rejected

Ruling on an application challenging general meeting decisions · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Soldina tn 4 korteriühistu · 80175156

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — XX; interested person — Narva linn, Soldina tn 4 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

Applicant XX challenged written decisions for lack of unanimity and board authority; the association agreed with the application.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Applicant XX sought a finding that the association’s decisions had no legal effect from adoption, or were void. The decisions of Narva linn, Soldina tn 4 korteriühistu were recorded on 6 January 2022 following written voting in December 2021. The questions concerned parking, accounting review and lighting. The applicant invoked the articles’ unanimity requirement because not all owners voted, and alleged that the board’s term had expired before it organised the vote. The association agreed that the application should succeed. After doubts about the first representative’s authority, the court obtained the current registered representative’s view, which also accepted the arguments. However, the court stated that it was not bound by participants’ legal assessments in such an application and had to examine nullity independently. On 31 January 2025 it rejected the application. It distinguished nullity from setting aside: in its assessment, breach of voting-number rules did not itself establish the alleged nullity ground. The applicant had not sought to set the decisions aside. The court also found void the articles’ clause allowing written decisions only if all members voted, and applied statutory quorum and majority rules. It considered participation by 60 votes sufficient. It likewise regarded the board term argument as a possible ground for setting aside, rather than nullity; it examined no other annulment grounds. It did not review lawfulness on other grounds. Costs were allocated to the applicant, but no reimbursement was awarded to the association: no proven costs arose and a statutory representative submitted its position. Appeal was available within 15 days from the day following receipt.

Outcome of this decision

Reject the application to declare the decisions of 06.01.2022 void. Allocate costs to the applicant, but there are no reimbursable association costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Reject XX’s application to declare Narva linn, Soldina tn 4 korteriühistu’s general meeting decision of 06 January 2022 void.
First instance
Case 2-24-147402Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kosmonaudi tn 3 korteriühistu · 80162834

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsInstalments and payment schedulesPayment accounting and set-offLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

How it started · editorial summary

XX and the association agreed on instalments with priority for current bills.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-24-147402/3Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Instalments and payments exceeding current bills

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kosmonaudi tn 3 korteriühistu · 80162834

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, Kosmonaudi tn 3 korteriühistu; person concerned XX — debtor

How it started · editorial summary

XX and the association agreed on instalments with priority for current bills.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court approved a settlement between Narva linn, Kosmonaudi tn 3 korteriühistu and owner XX covering acknowledged utility and management-charge debt and late-payment interest, and terminated proceedings. Costs are 208 euros: a 25-euro state fee and 183 euros in legal costs. The association waived other claims. Twenty months of varying instalments and early payment were agreed. Current undisputed bills must be paid separately; only the excess counts towards the settlement. Any full or partial delay in an instalment permits enforcement of the whole unpaid balance. Performance extinguishes mutual claims in this case. Other costs remain with each participant. The appeal period was reduced to two days after service. Performance is not established.

Outcome of this decision

Settlement approved and proceedings terminated; only amounts exceeding current bills go towards the existing debt.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Terminate proceedings in civil case no. 2-24-147402.
First instance
Case 2-23-4315Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 17 korteriühistu · 80070061

Apartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the boardApartment association meetings and decisions

How it started · editorial summary

Four applicants XX challenged apartment association Kangelaste prospekt 17’s meeting decisions of 22.02.2023 changing board membership.

· Ruling terminating the case after applicants waived their applicationViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-23-4315/12Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Board composition dispute at apartment association Kangelaste prospekt 17 ended after a new meeting

Ruling terminating the case after applicants waived their application · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 17 korteriühistu · 80070061

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicants XX — four individuals; interested person — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 17 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

Four applicants XX challenged apartment association Kangelaste prospekt 17’s meeting decisions of 22.02.2023 changing board membership.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Four applicants XX sought a finding that general meeting decisions had no legal effect from adoption, or were void. The decisions were taken by Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 17 korteriühistu on 22 February 2023 to recall the former board and elect a new one. The court discovered in the register that another meeting on 18 October 2023 had elected the board afresh. Review of the February decisions would no longer affect the current composition, so it asked for views on continuing the case. The applicants agreed to termination but asked for 240 euros in costs to be allocated to former board and initiative group members. The court treated agreement as waiver of the application, accepted it and terminated without deciding nullity. The association’s representative also agreed to termination. Costs were left jointly and severally to the applicants; their request to determine reimbursable costs was rejected. The individuals they named were not parties and could not bear costs of these proceedings. The association incurred no proven costs: its response was prepared by a statutory representative. The court separately explained the possibility of an independent damages claim and requesting half the fee back. This act did not establish nullity of the February decisions.

Outcome of this decision

Terminate proceedings in case 2-23-4315. Leave costs jointly and severally to the applicants and reject their application to determine reimbursable costs; no sums are reimbursable to participants.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. The applicants shall bear the procedural costs jointly and severally.
First instance
Case 2-21-2127Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 11 korteriühistu · 80170749

Apartment association meetings and decisions

How it started · editorial summary

Applicant XX’s successors did not wish to continue challenging the meeting decision. The court resumed the suspended case and terminated it without deciding validity.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-21-2127/35Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kangelaste prospekt 11: meeting decision dispute ended after successors declined to continue

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 11 korteriühistu · 80170749

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: original applicant XX; applicant’s legal successor XX; other legal successor of the applicant XX; interested person — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 11 korteriühistu; participants’ representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

Applicant XX’s successors did not wish to continue challenging the meeting decision. The court resumed the suspended case and terminated it without deciding validity.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court ended consideration of an application challenging the apartment association Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 11’s meeting decision of 20 December 2020. The ruling did not assess the decision’s validity. Original applicant XX died during proceedings, and the court suspended the case until someone able to continue was identified. It later established legal successors and asked their views. They did not wish to join and requested termination because the matter was no longer relevant. The association also requested termination and did not seek to have successors summoned to continue. The court noted that succession was possible in the dispute. However, it could not independently compel successors to continue. Having offered them an opportunity to join, it treated their unwillingness to continue as a refusal to pursue further consideration of the application and applied by analogy the rules on termination following waiver of a demand. The ruling of 20 January 2025 first resumed and then terminated proceedings. Each participant bears their own costs; no mutual reimbursement was awarded. This is procedural termination, not dismissal following examination of the meeting decision.

Outcome of this decision

Resume and terminate proceedings in case 2-21-2127. Each participant bears their own costs; there are no reimbursable costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Resume proceedings in civil case No 2-21-2127. 2. Terminate proceedings in civil case No 2-21-2127.
First instance
Case 2-22-7596Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Soldina tn 2 korteriühistu · 80180921

Apartment association meetings and decisionsVoting and representationArticles of association and amendments

How it started · editorial summary

Applicant XX sought a finding of nullity of the apartment association Soldina tn 2’s decisions of 20.04.2022 adopted without convening a meeting.

· Ruling on an application challenging general meeting decisionsViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-22-7596/5Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Apartment association Soldina tn 2’s written voting decisions declared void for breach of articles

Ruling on an application challenging general meeting decisions · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Soldina tn 2 korteriühistu · 80180921

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant XX; interested person — Narva linn, Soldina tn 2 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

Applicant XX sought a finding of nullity of the apartment association Soldina tn 2’s decisions of 20.04.2022 adopted without convening a meeting.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Applicant XX sought a finding that Narva linn, Soldina tn 2 korteriühistu’s decisions were void, meaning without legal effect from adoption. They were recorded in minutes dated 20 April 2022 after written voting on 5–19 April. Owners received a ballot with 22 draft decisions and business activity documents. The minutes recorded positions from 110 participants and declared most drafts adopted. The applicant cited clause 6.14 of the articles: written decisions were equivalent to meeting decisions only if all association members participated. The association acknowledged the facts and agreed the application should be granted. The court nevertheless independently examined the articles, ballots and minutes. It found no question had been voted on by all members, breaching the articles’ procedure. It declared the decisions void on that basis. It separately explained that the applicant sought nullity, not setting aside: prior objection to the drafts was not a necessary prerequisite for such a request. Despite granting the application, each party retained its own costs. The court found no confirmation that the applicant had notified the association of nullity before applying, while the association admitted the requests immediately. It considered the dispute could have been settled without proceedings and awarded no participant reimbursement. The act concerns written voting procedure in this association; it contains no independent assessment of the business merits of each draft.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the application and declare the owners’ decisions of 20.04.2022 at the apartment association Soldina tn 2 on the written voting questions of 05–19.04.2022 void. Each participant bears their own costs; there are no reimbursable costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Grant the application.
First instance
Case 2-24-122465Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Madise tn 6 korteriühistu · 80551777

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsInstalments and payment schedules

How it started · editorial summary

The association Madise tn 6 sought a debt; the case was transferred from payment-order proceedings after submission of a settlement.

· Order approving a settlementViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-24-122465/6Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Madise tn 6: agreed schedule and current bills

Order approving a settlement · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Madise tn 6 korteriühistu · 80551777

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, Madise tn 6 korteriühistu; Person concerned, debtor — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association Madise tn 6 sought a debt; the case was transferred from payment-order proceedings after submission of a settlement.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Madise tn 6 korteriühistu sought a debt through expedited payment-order proceedings. The participants submitted an agreement, after which Pärnu Maakohus transferred the case to Viru Maakohus. The association formalised its claim as instructed, and XX later resubmitted a signed settlement. XX stated that the earlier schedule was being followed. The participants fixed the debt and agreed eleven monthly payments. XX additionally undertook to reimburse 25 euros in state fees and 20 euros in costs by the agreed deadline. These 45 euros are outside the schedule amount. Current bills remain payable. The court found the settlement permissible and enforceable, approved it and ended the case. Each bears other costs. Some scheduled dates had already passed, but approval does not establish which payments were received. The statement about performance was XX’s. The underlying monetary dispute was not separately adjudicated.

Outcome of this decision

Approve monthly repayment of the debt. XX must additionally reimburse 45 euros in costs by the agreed deadline and pay current bills. End proceedings; allocate agreed costs accordingly and leave other costs to the participants.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. End the proceedings in civil case no. 2-24-122465.
First instance
Case 2-24-13338Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kosmonaudi tn 9, Linda tn 7 korteriühistu · 80180884

Apartment association board and managementReorganisation and liquidation

How it started · editorial summary

The association in liquidation challenged refusal to open separate associations’ register cards under the special rules for dissolving an association covering several properties.

· RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-24-13338/3Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Kosmonaudi tn 9, Linda tn 7: refusal to open new association register cards reversed and remitted

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, Kosmonaudi tn 9, Linda tn 7 korteriühistu · 80180884

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant and appellant against the ruling – Narva linn, Kosmonaudi tn 9, Linda tn 7 korteriühistu (in liquidation); applicant’s representative XX – notary; liquidators XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association in liquidation challenged refusal to open separate associations’ register cards under the special rules for dissolving an association covering several properties.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Narva linn, Kosmonaudi tn 9, Linda tn 7, in liquidation, asked the registration department to open cards for two separate associations, one for each previously jointly managed property. The application relied on the general meeting’s decision to dissolve the former association under the special rules for associations covering several properties. Dissolution was already registered. The registration department refused, considering that division was permitted only without liquidation under the general association rules. It believed the former association first had to resume activity and then resolve to divide. The association appealed, relying on the special rule in KrtS § 69 lg 4 and the registrar’s duty to open new cards on its own initiative. The circuit court agreed. The special procedure permits dissolution of an association managing several properties even after KrtS entered into force. It creates a separate association for each property while the old association undergoes liquidation. Dissolution does not automatically delete the old legal person from the register. Cards for the new associations must be opened as an official duty; if the registrar fails to act, the liquidators may file the relevant application. The ruling of 8 January 2025 reversed refusal, remitted the application to the registration department and allowed the appeal. It is not a register entry made by the circuit court itself. Appeal costs were left with the association and the 70-euro fee paid is to be refunded. The ruling confirms neither actual opening of new cards nor subsequent liquidation.

Outcome of this decision

Set aside the Tartu Maakohus registration department ruling of 16.08.2024 No. Ü 40014520 / 20. Remit the application of 07.08.2024 for reconsideration. Allow the appeal, leave costs with the association and refund the 70-euro fee.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Allow Narva linn, Kosmonaudi tn 9, Linda tn 7 korteriühistu’s (in liquidation) appeal against the ruling.
Appeal
Case 2-22-2124Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Joala tn 13, Joala tn 15, Kose tn 1a, Kose tn 3 korteriühistu · 80170785

Damage and insurance

How it started · editorial summary

An individual XX’s damages claim against the Joala–Kose association was pending; the claimant waived it.

· Ruling (kohtumäärus) accepting waiver of a claimViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-2124/11Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Damages claim against Joala–Kose association ended after claimant’s waiver

Ruling (kohtumäärus) accepting waiver of a claim · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Joala tn 13, Joala tn 15, Kose tn 1a, Kose tn 3 korteriühistu · 80170785

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant XX; defendant – Narva linn, Joala tn 13, Joala tn 15, Kose tn 1a, Kose tn 3 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

An individual XX’s damages claim against the Joala–Kose association was pending; the claimant waived it.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Claimant XX brought a damages claim against Narva linn, Joala tn 13, Joala tn 15, Kose tn 1a, Kose tn 3 korteriühistu. During proceedings, Viru Maakohus received a waiver signed also by the defendant. The claimant confirmed understanding of the consequences and requested each party to bear its own costs and reimbursement of half the fee. The association agreed to the waiver and proposed costs allocation. The court accepted the waiver and ended proceedings without deciding liability for the damage. It explained the consequence under the procedural rules applied: following such termination, the same claim against the same defendant on the same subject matter and grounds cannot be brought again. Of the 315-euro fee paid, the court ordered 157,50 euros refunded. Each party bears other costs. By agreement of the participants, the right to appeal the ruling was excluded, as expressly recorded. The ruling establishes neither the damage amount, merits of the original demand nor voluntary satisfaction of it.

Outcome of this decision

Terminate case 2-22-2124. Leave costs with the respective parties. Refund the claimant half the fee, 157,50 euros. According to its text, the ruling is not appealable because of the parties’ agreement.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. The parties shall bear their own litigation costs.
First instance
Case 2-24-15622Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 6 korteriühistu · 80029561

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

How it started · editorial summary

Insurer If P&C Insurance AS sought principal, late-payment interest and costs from the Pähklimäe tn 6 association; the participants submitted a settlement.

· Ruling approving a settlementViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-24-15622/4Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Pähklimäe tn 6 association and If P&C Insurance AS agreed payment of 1 335,10 euros

Ruling approving a settlement · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

If P&C Insurance AS · Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 6 korteriühistu · 10100168 · 80029561

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant – If P&C Insurance AS; interested person – Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 6 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

Insurer If P&C Insurance AS sought principal, late-payment interest and costs from the Pähklimäe tn 6 association; the participants submitted a settlement.

The dispute and the court’s decision

If P&C Insurance AS sought 1 000 euros in principal, 282,20 euros in late-payment interest for 8 February 2022 to 15 October 2024 and continuing statutory interest from Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 6 korteriühistu. The insurer also requested costs and interest on them after finality. The ruling does not disclose how the principal demand arose, so no particular insured event or basis for association liability can be inferred. After acceptance of the application, the participants settled on 23 October 2024 and submitted the agreement to the court. The association undertook to pay 1 335,10 euros by 31 December 2024: principal of 1 000 euros, interest of 141,10 euros, legal expenses of 169 euros and 25 euros to reimburse half the insurer’s fee. The agreed interest is thus half that initially claimed. On delay, the insurer may immediately demand the balance and pursue enforcement. The court found the settlement permissible, approved its terms and terminated proceedings. It separately ordered refund of the other half of the fee, 25 euros, to the insurer from the state budget; this is no additional association payment. Participants retained their other costs. By agreement, the ruling is not appealable. Approval does not confirm subsequent payment or replace a determination of the original demand on its merits.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the settlement of 23.10.2024: the association pays the insurer 1 335,10 euros by 31.12.2024; upon delay, the balance is immediately subject to enforcement. Terminate the case. Refund the applicant 25 euros in court fees; allocate other costs as agreed.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Terminate proceedings in civil case No. 2-24-15622 following approval of the settlement.
First instance
Case 2-23-147941Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Malmi tn 12 korteriühistu · 80250389

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesRepairs and shared propertyBills and justification of charges

How it started · editorial summary

The court assessed the owner’s objections concerning heated area and repairs.

· Court orderViru Maakohus Jõhvi kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-23-147941/17Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Management charges and heating objections

Court order · Viru Maakohus Jõhvi kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Malmi tn 12 korteriühistu · 80250389

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, Malmi tn 12 korteriühistu; person concerned XX — debtor

How it started · editorial summary

The court assessed the owner’s objections concerning heated area and repairs.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Malmi tn 12 korteriühistu claimed management-charge arrears and late-payment interest from owner XX. XX relied on the lack of a heater in part of the premises and defects in common property. The court examined payments, bills and meeting decisions on tariffs and found the claim proved. Heat from other rooms also reaches the room without a radiator, so it was not excluded from the calculation. Complaints about repairs did not remove the duty to pay management charges and comply with association decisions. Principal, accrued and continuing statutory late-payment interest until performance, and 445* euros in costs were awarded. The order does not establish the current balance or performance.

Outcome of this decision

Claim allowed; debt, late-payment interest and 445* euros in costs awarded.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Allow the application of Narva linn, Malmi tn 12 korteriühistu against XX for management-charge arrears.
First instance
Case 2-22-13958Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Uusküla tn 9 korteriühistu · 80180269

Water and seweragePipes, risers and sewerageDamage and insuranceLeaks and floodingCause and proof of damageAmount of compensationInsurance payment and insurer’s claim

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer sought reimbursement for a pipe rupture first from two owners XX, then alternatively from the Uusküla tn 9 association.

· Ruling granting the insurer’s demandViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-13958/16Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Uusküla tn 9 association ordered to reimburse 2 500 euros for a shared riser rupture

Ruling granting the insurer’s demand · Viru Maakohus · First instance

AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ · AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ Eesti filiaal · Narva, Uusküla tn 9 korteriühistu · 110051834 · 12831829 · 80180269

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant – AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ through its Estonian branch; two interested individuals XX – proceedings against them terminated; interested person – Narva, Uusküla tn 9 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer sought reimbursement for a pipe rupture first from two owners XX, then alternatively from the Uusküla tn 9 association.

The dispute and the court’s decision

AB „Lietuvos draudimas“, acting through its Estonian branch, initially sought 2 500 euros in insurance compensation paid for water damage on 26 June 2022 from two owners XX. The owners objected that the damaged pipe was shared property within the association’s responsibility. In August 2024, the insurer brought an alternative demand against Narva, Uusküla tn 9 korteriühistu. The association admitted the incident’s circumstances and agreed that the application should be granted: a shared hot-water riser had ruptured. The insurer then waived its demands against the individuals. The court accepted the waiver and ended proceedings concerning both owners; this is the procedural result of waiver, rather than a separate ruling that no possible owner liability existed. The court examined the demand against the association on its merits. It established that the pipe formed part of the shared system, the association’s duty to monitor its condition and keep it working, a link between breach and insured property damage, and payment of 2 500 euros. The rupture supported a presumption of breach of the maintenance duty; the association neither rebutted it nor proved the breach excusable. Following insurance payment, the corresponding claim passed to the insurer. The association was ordered to pay 2 500 euros and statutory late-payment interest from 27 August 2024. Of 594 euros claimed in costs, 512 euros was awarded: a 50-euro fee and 462 euros for assistance, excluding steps before the demand was made against the association. Interest on costs was also awarded after finality. The two owners’ costs were imposed on the insurer, but no specific reimbursement was set because they supplied no statement.

Outcome of this decision

Accept waiver of the application against two individuals XX and terminate proceedings concerning them. Grant the demand against the association: award 2 500 euros, statutory interest from 27.08.2024 until payment, and 512 euros in costs with interest after finality. Impose the individuals’ costs on the insurer, leaving the amount undetermined because reimbursement was not requested.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Grant the application by AB „Lietuvos draudimas“, through its Eesti filiaal, against Narva, Uusküla tn 9 korteriühistu for damages.
First instance
Case 2-21-19754Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 18a korteriühistu · 80170383

Damage and insuranceInsurance payment and insurer’s claim

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer waived its demand after payment; the dispute continued over whether the association should bear the costs of going to court.

· Ruling accepting waiver of an application and terminating proceedingsViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-21-19754/14Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kangelaste prospekt 18a: insurer’s case ended after payment; reduced costs awarded against association

Ruling accepting waiver of an application and terminating proceedings · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 18a korteriühistu · AB Lietuvos draudimas · AB Lietuvos draudimas Eesti filiaal · 80170383 · 110051834 · 12831829

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant – AB Lietuvos draudimas (110051834) through its Estonian branch (12831829); interested person – Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 18a korteriühistu (80170383); applicant’s representative XX; association representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer waived its demand after payment; the dispute continued over whether the association should bear the costs of going to court.

The dispute and the court’s decision

AB Lietuvos draudimas, through its Estonian branch, brought a damages claim against the apartment association Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 18a. The insurer later waived its application because the principal demand had been met. The association did not object to termination but disputed liability for costs: it said payment was made on the same day the insurer went to court and proceedings could have been avoided. The court accepted the waiver, applying the rules on waiver of a claim by analogy. It did not decide the original damages demand again. On costs, it noted that the association had not previously said it needed extra time to contact its own insurer or reported the results. The court did not know the time of transfer within the day, so the same date for payment and filing did not prove absence of a demand at the time of filing. Costs of 523 euros were requested. The court reduced both preparation time for a standard application and the representative’s reimbursable hourly rate. It found 265 euros for legal assistance and 25 euros for the non-refundable fee portion justified. The ruling of 27 September 2024 ended proceedings, awarded 290 euros in costs against the association and provided for interest on the unpaid amount from finality. Another 25 euros, half the fee paid, is refunded to the insurer by the state. The scheduled hearing was cancelled. The result does not mean a fresh award of the original damage or approval of all legal costs claimed.

Outcome of this decision

Terminate the case following the insurer’s waiver after satisfaction of the demand. The association bears costs; award 290 euros and statutory interest on the unpaid amount from finality. Refund the insurer 25 euros in court fees and cancel the hearing.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 18a korteriühistu shall bear the litigation costs.
First instance