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 2-08-85420Source: 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 2-14-55911Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 3 korteriühistu · 80162521

Apartment association meetings and decisions

How it started · editorial summary

The court refused to accept for proceedings OÜ Rosehill’s claim against the apartment association KANGELASTE 3 because the 300 euro state fee had not been paid and translations of evidence were missing.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-55911/3Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

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

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

OÜ Rosehill · KÜ KANGELASTE 3 · 10972543 · 80162521

Entry into force has not been reverified

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

How it started · editorial summary

The court refused to accept for proceedings OÜ Rosehill’s claim against the apartment association KANGELASTE 3 because the 300 euro state fee had not been paid and translations of evidence were missing.

The dispute and the court’s decision

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

Outcome of this decision

Refuse to accept for proceedings OÜ Rosehill’s claim against the apartment association KANGELASTE 3 concerning the meeting decisions of 15 May 2014. Leave costs to the claimant; return the application and attachments after the ruling enters into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Leave procedural costs to the claimant.
First instance
Case 2-12-32719Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 3 korteriühistu · 80162521

Apartment association meetings and decisions

How it started · editorial summary

The court approved the agreement between OÜ Rosehill, claimant XX and the apartment association KANGELASTE 3 and terminated the dispute over meeting decisions of 28 May 2012.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-12-32719/47Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

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

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

OÜ Rosehill · KÜ KANGELASTE 3 · 10972543 · 80162521

Entry into force has not been reverified

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

How it started · editorial summary

The court approved the agreement between OÜ Rosehill, claimant XX and the apartment association KANGELASTE 3 and terminated the dispute over meeting decisions of 28 May 2012.

The dispute and the court’s decision

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

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement on both claimants’ waiver of the claim, absence of mutual claims and each party bearing its own costs. Terminate the case; refund 150 euros in court fees to Rosehill’s account after the ruling becomes final.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1.3. The parties shall bear their own litigation costs.
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 2-14-4514Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 3 korteriühistu · 80162521

Apartment association meetings and decisions

How it started · editorial summary

The court approved the agreement between OÜ Rosehill and the apartment association KANGELASTE 3: the company waived its claim and the parties confirmed that they had no mutual claims in this case.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-4514/8Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Company waived its challenge to a 2009 meeting decision under an approved agreement

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

OÜ Rosehill · KÜ KANGELASTE 3 · 10972543 · 80162521

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant OÜ Rosehill – waived its claim under the agreement.; Defendant KÜ KANGELASTE 3 – supported the waiver.

How it started · editorial summary

The court approved the agreement between OÜ Rosehill and the apartment association KANGELASTE 3: the company waived its claim and the parties confirmed that they had no mutual claims in this case.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Rosehill sought a declaration that the association’s meeting decision of 3 November 2009 was void, meaning it had no legal effect from adoption. On 9 September 2014, the parties asked to conclude the case by agreement. Under the agreed terms, the claimant waives the claim and the defendant supports the waiver. The parties confirm that they have no mutual claims concerning the subject matter of this case, and each bears its own costs. The court considered the agreement lawful, enforceable and consistent with the public interest, approved it and terminated proceedings. This ruling did not establish that the meeting decision was void: the dispute ended by agreement. After the ruling becomes final, the claimant is entitled to a refund of 125 euros, half the 250-euro court fee paid. The source does not confirm an actual refund.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement on Rosehill’s waiver of the claim, absence of mutual claims in the case, and each party bearing its own costs. Terminate proceedings; refund the claimant 125 euros in court fees after the ruling becomes final.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1.3. The parties shall bear their own litigation costs.
First instance
Case 2-12-48359Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Suur tn 8 korteriühistu · 80183476

HeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesApartment association meetings and decisionsArticles of association and amendmentsAgenda and minutes

Latest prepared act · · № 2-12-48359/63

How it started · editorial summary

Claimant XX did not obtain a declaration that the apartment association VANA LOSS decision on heating cost allocation was void. The appeal upheld the first-instance result while changing the legal reasoning.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 1 · Unprepared stages: 1
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-12-48359/63Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Appeal court upheld the refusal to declare a new heating payment arrangement void

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KORTERIÜHISTU VANA LOSS · 80183476

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and appellant XX – challenged the cost allocation arrangement.; Defendant KORTERIÜHISTU VANA LOSS – defended the meeting decision.

How it started · editorial summary

Claimant XX did not obtain a declaration that the apartment association VANA LOSS decision on heating cost allocation was void. The appeal upheld the first-instance result while changing the legal reasoning.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The claimant challenged item 2 of the meeting decision of 22 August 2012, which changed the rules in the articles of association for allocating utility expenses, including heating. The claimant argued that the new arrangement unjustifiably increased charges for premises fully connected to central heating and favoured another owner. The association opposed the claim and also relied on a later meeting decision. The first-instance court dismissed the claim, but applied rules on invalidating a decision without examining the arguments about conflict with good morals and good faith on their merits. The appeal court noted that the claimant had specifically sought a declaration of nullity: absence of legal effect from adoption. Subsequent confirmation of the decision did not itself remove the right to rely on nullity, and the voting majority was not in dispute. The appeal court examined the grounds raised but did not find them established. The rules in force allowed the articles to allocate costs differently from a floor-area calculation. Higher charges for some owners did not in themselves mean a conflict with good morals. In this case, the court took account of the fact that the non-residential premises were used as a shop and did not require the same temperature as a home. The alleged omission of the claimant’s objections from the minutes was likewise not considered a ground for nullity. The court agreed that the request to join other owners had not been properly determined, but found that this had not affected the result: a judgment in such a dispute applies to association members regardless of their participation in proceedings. The appeal was dismissed. The operative part of the first judgment was upheld and costs at both levels were imposed on the claimant. Another judgment concerning the meeting of 20 December 2012 was dealt with separately and, according to this source, was already final when this case was considered.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss claimant XX’s appeal and uphold the operative part of the Viru Maakohus judgment of 9 October 2013, changing its legal reasoning in part. The claimant must bear costs at both levels.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
[…] Leave the operative part of the Viru Maakohus judgment of 09 October 2013 unchanged, amending the legal reasoning of the judgment in part.
Appeal
Not prepared yet

· Case 2-12-48359 · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Case 2-14-56479Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 42 korteriühistu · 80054903

HeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesChanges to or disconnection from heatingApartment association bills, payments and debtsBills and justification of chargesApartment association meetings and decisions

How it started · editorial summary

The claimant linked the disputed charges to floor area and changes to heating; the court found the proposed claim insufficient for the stated purpose.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-56479/6Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 42: claim seeking a declaration of no debt was not admitted

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Tallinna mnt 42 KÜ · 80054903

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — XX; Defendant — Tallinna mnt 42 KÜ

How it started · editorial summary

The claimant linked the disputed charges to floor area and changes to heating; the court found the proposed claim insufficient for the stated purpose.

The dispute and the court’s decision

XX sued Tallinna mnt 42 KÜ (now — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 42 korteriühistu), seeking a declaration of no debt and recalculation of management and utility payments. XX alleged that the association used an incorrect floor area and imposed an additional heating charge after changes to the heating system, also referring to board permission. These were the claimant’s allegations, not breaches established by the court. XX supplemented the claim after being given time to clarify it, but the court refused admission because the claim could not achieve its stated purpose. The charges relied on board and general-meeting decisions. XX considered those decisions void, but gave no grounds or supporting facts for nullity and did not wish to challenge them. The court referred to the binding nature of association decisions on management costs and found the claim insufficient for the requested result. No debt was awarded on its merits and no absence of debt was declared: the case was not admitted. All costs were imposed on XX. The court explained the right to apply separately for a refund of the paid state fee. An interlocutory appeal lies to Tartu Ringkonnakohus through Viru Maakohus within 15 days after service, no later than five months after the order. The source establishes no subsequent acts.

Outcome of this decision

Admission of the claim for a declaration of no debt and recalculation was refused. XX bears the costs; the right to request a state-fee refund was explained. Neither the merits of the debt nor unlawful heating charges were established by this act.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Refuse to admit XX’s claim against Tallinna mnt 42 KÜ seeking a declaration that no debt exists.
First instance
Case 2-13-39622Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 3 korteriühistu · 80162521

Apartment association meetings and decisions

Latest prepared act · · № 2-13-39622/22

How it started · editorial summary

The court approved the agreement between OÜ Rosehill, claimant XX and the apartment association Kangelaste 3 and terminated proceedings concerning the meeting decisions of 28 May 2013.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 1 · Unprepared stages: 1
· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-13-39622/22Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Two claimants waived their challenge to meeting decisions; a fee refund was ordered only for the company

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

OÜ Rosehill · KÜ Kangelaste 3 · 10972543 · 80162521

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant OÜ Rosehill – company that paid the court fee.; Claimant XX – participant in the joined proceedings.; Defendant KÜ Kangelaste 3 – supported the waiver.

How it started · editorial summary

The court approved the agreement between OÜ Rosehill, claimant XX and the apartment association Kangelaste 3 and terminated proceedings concerning the meeting decisions of 28 May 2013.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The company Rosehill and individual XX challenged decisions of the association’s meeting. Their claims initially had different case numbers and were joined on 31 March 2014 in proceedings 2-13-39622. On 9 September, the parties submitted an agreement to end the dispute. Both claimants waived their claims and the association supported the waiver. The parties confirmed that they had no mutual claims in this case and agreed to bear their own costs. The court considered the terms lawful, enforceable and consistent with the public interest, approved the agreement and terminated proceedings. This ruling did not invalidate the meeting decisions. Rosehill was awarded a refund of 125 euros, half its 250-euro court fee, once the ruling became final. Claimant XX had previously been exempted from the fee, so XX’s refund request was refused. Separately, claimant XX was released from paying 250 euros* in costs to the state budget. The source does not establish that the money was actually transferred to the company.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement on both claimants’ waiver of their claims and terminate proceedings. Each party bears its own costs. Refund Rosehill 125 euros in court fees after the ruling becomes final; refuse XX’s refund request and release XX from paying 250 euros* in costs to the state budget.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1.3. The parties shall bear their own litigation costs.
First instance
Not prepared yet

· Case 2-13-39622 · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Case 2-12-6418Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 3 korteriühistu · 80162521

Apartment association meetings and decisions

Latest prepared act · · № 2-12-6418/81

How it started · editorial summary

The court set aside two rulings determining costs in a dispute with the apartment association Kangelaste 3. The claimants withdrew their costs application, and each party retained its own costs.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 1 · Unprepared stages: 5
· RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-12-6418/81Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Costs dispute ended by agreement; earlier rulings set aside

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

OÜ Rosehill · KÜ Kangelaste 3 · 10972543 · 80162521

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: OÜ Rosehill and claimant XX — applicants for costs determination and respondents to the appeal.; Apartment association Kangelaste 3 — defendant in the main case and appellant against the ruling.

How it started · editorial summary

The court set aside two rulings determining costs in a dispute with the apartment association Kangelaste 3. The claimants withdrew their costs application, and each party retained its own costs.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The original dispute between OÜ Rosehill and claimant XX on one side and the association on the other concerned meeting decisions. According to the history in this act, the claims had previously been granted by default judgment, and reasons were later added to that judgment; the subsequent dispute concerned the amount of costs to be reimbursed. The claimants sought 1 551,64 euros: 255,64 euros in state fees and 1 296 euros for legal assistance. On 28 April 2014, the county court awarded 974,92 euros. Following the association’s appeal, the appeal court reduced the amount to 867,03 euros on 22 August 2014. On 9 September, the parties submitted an agreement under which the claimants withdrew their application to determine costs and the association supported the withdrawal. Each participant was to bear its own costs, with no remaining mutual costs claims in this case. The court found the agreement lawful and enforceable, approved it and terminated the costs determination proceedings. It also set aside both rulings mentioned above. This act did not set aside the earlier judgment on the meeting dispute. The previously determined 974,92 and 867,03 euros are not new awards under the agreement.

Outcome of this decision

Set aside the rulings of 28 April 2014 and 22 August 2014. Approve the claimants’ withdrawal of their application to determine costs and the term requiring the parties to bear their own costs; terminate these proceedings.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Set aside the Tartu Ringkonnakohus ruling of 22 August 2014 in civil case No 2-12-6418.
Appeal
Not prepared yet

· Case 2-12-6418 · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Not prepared yet

· Case 2-12-6418 · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Not prepared yet

· Case 2-12-6418 · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Not prepared yet

· Case 2-12-6418 · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Not prepared yet

· Case 2-12-6418 · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Case 2-10-37634Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

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

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeBudget, management plan and ratesDocuments and informationInspection and copies of documentsReporting and review of expenditureApartment association bills, payments and debtsPayment accounting and set-off

Latest prepared act · · № 2-10-37634/39

How it started · editorial summary

Claimant XX sought a declaration of nullity and invalidation of the apartment association Narva Sõbralik meeting decisions of 06.05.2010, relying primarily on the failure to provide documents two weeks before discussion. The court considered XX’s appeal against Viru Maakohus’s dismissal judgment of 16.05.2011.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 1 · Unprepared stages: 1
· Judgment (kohtuotsus)Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-10-37634/39Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Apartment association Narva Sõbralik: three meeting decisions invalidated because documents were provided late

Judgment (kohtuotsus) · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Korteriühistu Narva Sõbralik · 80245744

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant XX; appellant; defendant – Korteriühistu Narva Sõbralik; other party to the appeal; defendant’s representative XX – representative of the association

How it started · editorial summary

Claimant XX sought a declaration of nullity and invalidation of the apartment association Narva Sõbralik meeting decisions of 06.05.2010, relying primarily on the failure to provide documents two weeks before discussion. The court considered XX’s appeal against Viru Maakohus’s dismissal judgment of 16.05.2011.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Claimant XX challenged decisions of the apartment association Narva Sõbralik (now – Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 2a korteriühistu) general meeting of 6 May 2010, seeking a declaration that they were void from adoption or an order invalidating them. The dispute concerned advance access to the management plan, report and balance sheet. The claimant said the necessary documents had not been provided two weeks before the meeting. The association objected that the convening procedure had been followed, documents had been sent, and breach of the duty to inform did not by itself prevent the meeting from taking place. Viru Maakohus dismissed the claim on 16 May 2011. The first-instance court acknowledged that the period for examining documents had been breached but considered this insufficient to grant the claim. Claimant XX appealed for the judgment to be set aside. The circuit court agreed with the assessment of the evidence that documents had been provided late, but rejected the legal conclusion that this had no consequences. The management plan and report were handed over only three days before discussion; provision of the balance sheet had not been established. Under the rules then applied, advance access had to allow association members reasonable time to assess important management matters. That provision did not, however, require the audit committee’s report to be sent as well. The appeal was allowed in part. The court set aside the dismissal concerning approval of the 2009 report, the 2010 budget, and the 2010 repair work and repair fund contribution rate, and itself invalidated these three decisions. Dismissal of the challenge to the fourth decision, on how received payments were accounted for, remained unchanged: the court found no connection with the established breach. Costs at both levels were allocated 25% to claimant XX and 75% to the association; the association was also ordered to pay 50 euros in court fees to the state. The result invalidates specific decisions; it does not declare every decision of the meeting void from the outset.

Outcome of this decision

Allow the appeal in part. Set aside the first-instance dismissal of the challenge to decisions under items 1–3 of the 06.05.2010 meeting and give a new judgment in that part: invalidate approval of the 2009 report, the 2010 budget, and the 2010 repair work and repair fund contribution rate. Leave the rest unchanged. First-instance and appeal costs: 25% borne by claimant XX and 75% by the apartment association Narva Sõbralik. Order the association to pay 50 euros in court fees to the state within 15 days after the judgment becomes final.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Allow the appeal in part.
Appeal
Not prepared yet

· Case 2-10-37634 · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Case 2-12-6397Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 20 korteriühistu · 80061866

Apartment association meetings and decisions

How it started · editorial summary

After filing the claim, the representatives of two companies formalised a waiver of the claim on behalf of the organisations themselves; the court considered this corrected statement.

· Order terminating proceedingsViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-12-6397/7Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Puškini 20: proceedings terminated after two organisations waived their challenge to general meeting decisions

Order terminating proceedings · Viru Maakohus · First instance

OÜ Esteetilise Meditsiini Keskus Gratsija · UÜ Prospekt-Media · KÜ Puškini 20 · 10228595 · 10579314 · 80061866

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant – OÜ Esteetilise Meditsiini Keskus Gratsija; claimant – UÜ Prospekt-Media; claimants’ legal representatives XX; defendant – KÜ Puškini 20

How it started · editorial summary

After filing the claim, the representatives of two companies formalised a waiver of the claim on behalf of the organisations themselves; the court considered this corrected statement.

The dispute and the court’s decision

OÜ Esteetilise Meditsiini Keskus Gratsija and UÜ Prospekt-Media brought a claim against the apartment association Puškini 20 seeking to invalidate general meeting decisions. At an early stage, their legal representatives submitted statements in their own names asking to discontinue the claims. The court asked them to express that intention on behalf of the claimant organisations. The corrected statements arrived on 27 February 2012. The court treated them as waiver of the claim, accepted it and terminated the proceedings by an order of 28 February 2012 without deciding the complaints about the meeting on their merits. The order did not examine the circumstances of the decisions or the grounds for challenging them and therefore does not confirm that the association’s decisions were lawful. The court did not send the statement to the defendant for a separate response, citing the early stage of proceedings and the absence of any infringement of the defendant’s rights from termination. It explained that, following waiver of the claim, a new claim against the same defendant with the same subject matter and grounds could not be brought. The operative part neither allocates litigation costs nor sets a monetary amount for them. The copy’s finality stamp does not establish that no subsequent procedural steps occurred.

Outcome of this decision

Terminate proceedings on the claim by OÜ Esteetilise Meditsiini Keskus Gratsija and UÜ Prospekt-Media against the apartment association Puškini 20 challenging general meeting decisions, following waiver of the claim. The operative part contains no separate costs decision.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Terminate proceedings on the claim by […] and UÜ Prospekt-Media against KÜ Puškini 20 seeking invalidation of general meeting decisions, following waiver of the claim.
First instance
Case 2-10-51755Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu · 80189721

HeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesApartment association bills, payments and debtsBills and justification of chargesApartment association meetings and decisionsBudget, management plan and ratesConvening meetings and advance notice
Latest known stageNot prepared yet

· Case 2-10-51755 · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Latest prepared act · · № 2-10-51755/12

How it started · editorial summary

Claimant XX challenged charges and meeting decisions on payments. The association relied on the time limit for challenging decisions and reported correcting the heating calculation.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 1 · Unprepared stages: 1
Not prepared yet

· Case 2-10-51755 · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-10-51755/12Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Puškini tn. 12: challenge to decisions and charges dismissed after expiry of the three-month time limit

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Puškini tn.12 korteriühistu · 80189721

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant XX — owner of non-residential premises; claimant’s adviser XX; defendant — Puškini tn.12 korteriühistu; association’s management board member XX; association’s contractual representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

Claimant XX challenged charges and meeting decisions on payments. The association relied on the time limit for challenging decisions and reported correcting the heating calculation.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Claimant XX, the owner of non-residential premises, challenged charges made by the apartment association Puškini tn. 12. The claimant referred to an overstated floor area used for heating charges, payments for rent, advertising and waste collection, and the lack of an opportunity to examine meeting decisions in time. In an amended claim, the claimant sought to have decisions from 2003, 2005 and 2008, and the charges based on them, set aside. The association objected that the claimant was its member, could participate in management and obtain documents, and had missed the time limit for challenging decisions. It also reported recalculating heating charges according to the area of the property. The court examined these positions and noted that, under the law applied at the time, decisions on management of the building were binding on association members. The claimant argued that the minutes had only been received with the defence in December 2010. The court found it unproven that the claimant had learned of the disputed decisions only then: the claimant had known about the disputed payments by January 2010, but formulated the specific request to set aside the decisions in January 2011. The court concluded that the three-month time limit for bringing the challenge had expired. By its judgment of 5 August 2011, the court dismissed the claim in full. Claimant XX was left to bear both the claimant’s own costs and the association’s costs; their monetary amount was not determined in the operative part. The court dismissed the claim because the time limit had expired and the decisions remained binding; it did not separately examine the correctness of every monthly charge. It referred specifically to the recalculation of heating charges confirmed by an invoice. This decision does not describe the subsequent course of the case.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss the claim challenging the charges in full. Leave the defendant association’s costs to claimant XX and the claimant’s own costs to the claimant. The operative part does not determine the monetary amount of reimbursement.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Dismiss […] the claim against Puškini tn. 12 korteriühistu […] in full. […] Leave the claimant’s procedural costs entirely to the claimant.
First instance