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 2-24-7516Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Madise tn 8 korteriühistu · 80175311

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayRights in real propertyOwnership and register entries

How it started · editorial summary

The court awarded management-cost arrears against heir XX. Succession-proceeding costs were not awarded in this case; the court identified a different procedure for them.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-24-7516/4Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Madise tn 8: management costs and the ownership entry

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Madise tn 8 korteriühistu · 80175311

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, Madise tn 8 korteriühistu; Person concerned, heir — XX; Association’s representative — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The court awarded management-cost arrears against heir XX. Succession-proceeding costs were not awarded in this case; the court identified a different procedure for them.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Madise tn 8 korteriühistu obtained an award of apartment management-cost arrears and late-payment interest against heir XX. The court established acceptance of the inheritance: liability for management costs does not depend on whether the ownership entry in the land register has changed. Documents were served personally but no response was filed; that does not mean voluntary payment. The court returned the association’s additional request to change the ownership entry. It was a new claim that could not be decided with this management-cost application, and the entry itself did not affect the association’s property rights. The request for succession-proceeding costs was dismissed in this case. The court treated it as a separate damages claim requiring action proceedings, without deciding every possible basis for such an action. The operative part awarded principal debt, accrued and further statutory late-payment interest on the principal until payment, and 1 010 euros in litigation costs. Actual enforcement is not established.

Outcome of this decision

Allow the application in part. Award the principal debt, accrued and further statutory late-payment interest on the principal until payment against XX for the association. Dismiss the succession-cost claim. Award 1 010 euros in litigation costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. Dismiss the claim to recover the costs of succession proceedings from the person concerned.
First instance
Case 2-20-16862Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 19 korteriühistu · 80228194

Parking and groundsConstruction of parking facilitiesContracts and servicesPayment, advance payments and refundsDamage and insuranceCause and proof of damageAmount of compensationApartment association board and managementAuthority and representation

How it started · editorial summary

The association brought a joint and several demand against the management company and defendant XX to reimburse an advance paid to the contractor for an unfinished car park.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus Jõhvi kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-20-16862/58Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

P. Kerese tn 19: 3 000 euro parking claim against management company and individual dismissed

Judgment · Viru Maakohus Jõhvi kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 19 korteriühistu · Elamu Teenused Grupp OÜ · 80228194 · 11688471

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 19 korteriühistu (80228194); defendant — Elamu Teenused Grupp OÜ (11688471); defendant XX — individual and management company board member; claimant’s representative XX; defendants’ representative XX; association board member XX — representative under the works contract

How it started · editorial summary

The association brought a joint and several demand against the management company and defendant XX to reimburse an advance paid to the contractor for an unfinished car park.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 19 sought 3 000 euros jointly and severally from Elamu Teenused Grupp OÜ and defendant XX: one common amount recoverable from either defendant. The dispute concerned an advance to a contractor for a car park. The association alleged that XX exceeded authority, transferred funds without a proper decision and helped change the design. The works were unfinished and the right to use city land later ended. The defendants replied that the works contract was signed by a board member authorised to represent the association alone. The advance arose under a valid contract and the transfer followed that member’s instruction; consequences of an unfinished project could not be attributed to the payment itself. The court found that XX did lack authority to represent the association in concluding the transaction. But the additional signature did not change the validity of the contract signed by an authorised board member. The association already owed the advance under it. Lack of separate approval by every board member did not turn the transfer into damage caused by the defendant. The court examined liability grounds, including possible breach of the management contract, and found absence of causation decisive: the association had to pay the invoice even without XX’s disputed transfer. Even on a different view, there was no basis to regard non-completion of the car park as a foreseeable result of that act. Design approval problems and the end of land use were not attributed to these defendants either. The judgment of 16 September 2024 dismissed the claim in full and allocated costs to the association, with the amount determined separately. The court acknowledged loss of the advance because the car park was unfinished, but did not find the necessary conditions for liability of these particular defendants; it did not deny the association’s loss.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss the association’s joint and several demand for 3 000 euros against Elamu Teenused Grupp OÜ and defendant XX. Allocate all costs to the association; determine their amount in a separate act after entry into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. The claimant shall bear all procedural costs.
First instance
Case 2-22-18555Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Suur tn 12 korteriühistu · 80218997

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

How it started · editorial summary

Applicant XX sought to set aside or establish nullity of the annual report approval decision; the court examined prior access to documents.

· Court rulingViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-22-18555/10Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Suur tn 12: annual report approval void because document inspection procedure was not communicated

Court ruling · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Suur tn 12 korteriühistu · 80218997

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant XX — person challenging the decision; interested person — Narva linn, Suur tn 12 korteriühistu (80218997); applicant’s representative XX; association’s representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

Applicant XX sought to set aside or establish nullity of the annual report approval decision; the court examined prior access to documents.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Applicant XX challenged item 2 of Narva linn, Suur tn 12 korteriühistu’s meeting decisions of 11 October 2022 approving the 2021 annual report. The applicant said members received an audit report and an income and expenditure report, while the annual report later filed with the register differed in content. Preparation for voting and completeness of information were also challenged. The association objected that alleged inaccuracies in accounting documents did not themselves justify setting aside the decision. It considered posting a meeting notice and allowing members to request the full report from the board sufficient. It cited noticeboards’ limited size to explain the amount of information displayed. The court focused on inspection arrangements. The notice gave date, time, place and agenda but not where and how to inspect the documents for approval. The materials supplied beforehand did not contain all the essential data, including expenses for each apartment ownership. The court held that an opportunity to approach the board independently does not replace the mandatory communication of inspection arrangements. This prevented applicant XX from voting on the annual report on an informed basis. The ruling of 19 August 2024 found only challenged item 2 without legal effect from adoption, or void, because of a material convening breach. The court did not consider other meeting decisions and found other objections to reporting figures unnecessary to resolve this question. Costs were allocated to the association and a 50 euro fee awarded to applicant XX. The outcome therefore concerns the report approval procedure and does not confirm all allegations of inaccurate accounting data.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the application and declare item 2 of the association’s meeting decision of 11.10.2022 approving the 2021 report void. Allocate all costs to the association and award applicant XX a 50 euro fee.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Declare item 2 of Narva linn, Suur tn 12 korteriühistu’s general meeting decision of 11 October 2022 void.
First instance
Case 2-20-5099Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 2 korteriühistu · 80158614

Damage and insuranceLeaks and floodingInsurance payment and insurer’s claimWater and seweragePipes, risers and sewerageApartment association bills, payments and debtsLimitation of claims

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer sought compensation for 2014 damage from owner XX or alternatively from the Pähklimäe tn 2 association; both pleaded limitation.

· Court orderViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-20-5099/30Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Pähklimäe tn 2: limitation of an insurer’s claim after water damage

Court order · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ · AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ Eesti filiaal · Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 2 korteriühistu · 110051834 · 12831829 · 80158614

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ through its Estonian branch; Person concerned, owner — XX; Person concerned — Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 2 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer sought compensation for 2014 damage from owner XX or alternatively from the Pähklimäe tn 2 association; both pleaded limitation.

The dispute and the court’s decision

AB „Lietuvos draudimas“, acting through its Estonian branch, sought reimbursement of an insurance payment from owner XX or alternatively from Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 2 korteriühistu. The claim concerned water damage on 12 January 2014 and a broken inlet valve that the insurer considered common property. Statutory late-payment interest from 31 January 2023 and costs were also sought. Both respondents pleaded limitation and disputed responsibility. The insurer argued that payment transferred the injured owner’s statutory claim, subject to a ten-year period. The owner also relied on preventive measures taken, while the association denied breaching its duties. The court agreed that the claim did not arise from the insurance contract. However, transfer preserved the injured owner’s legal position in relation to the association. The court treated those relations as analogous to transactions and applied a three-year, rather than ten-year, limitation period. It linked commencement to payment on 30 January 2014, expiry to 30 January 2017 and filing to 3 April 2020. The application against both respondents was therefore dismissed. The court also discussed conditions for compensation involving common property, but limitation was the decisive ground. The insurer bears costs; their amount is to be determined separately after entry into force of the principal ruling.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss the application against owner XX and the Pähklimäe tn 2 association. Order AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ to bear costs, to be quantified separately after the principal ruling enters into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Dismiss the application of AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ Eesti filiaal against XX and Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 2 korteriühistu for compensation for damage.
First instance
Case 2-23-15764Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 30 korteriühistu · 80171069

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

How it started · editorial summary

Weki Ehitus OÜ brought a debt claim against the apartment association Kangelaste prospekt 30; the parties submitted their settlement of 08.05.2024.

· Ruling approving a settlement and terminating proceedingsViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-23-15764/21Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Weki Ehitus OÜ and apartment association Kangelaste prospekt 30 agreed three payments and costs

Ruling approving a settlement and terminating proceedings · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Weki Ehitus OÜ · Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 30 korteriühistu · 12905657 · 80171069

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — Weki Ehitus OÜ; defendant — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 30 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

Weki Ehitus OÜ brought a debt claim against the apartment association Kangelaste prospekt 30; the parties submitted their settlement of 08.05.2024.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Viru Maakohus was hearing Weki Ehitus OÜ’s debt claim against Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 30 korteriühistu. On 8 May 2024 the parties submitted a signed settlement and requested approval. The ruling does not describe the contract, specific construction works or quality objections, so the claimant’s name cannot establish the nature of the disputed services. The association agreed to pay 5 697,19 euros, comprising 4 979,20 euros in principal, 430,63 euros in interest as of 7 November 2023 and 287,36 euros for 8 November 2023 to 26 April 2024. Three payments were agreed: 1 899 euros by the end of May and again by the end of June 2024 and 1 899,19 euros by the end of July. Separately, by 31 July the association reimburses 1 275 euros in claimant costs: a 315 euro fee and 960 euros in representative remuneration. The court found no conflict with the law or good morals, approved the agreement and terminated proceedings. It explained compulsory enforcement for non-performance and the consequences of termination for a repeated claim between the same parties. It separately ordered half the fee paid, 315 euros, refunded to the claimant from the budget. This refund is not another association obligation. The parties also agreed a shortened two-day appeal period against the ruling after service.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the association’s obligation to pay 5 697,19 euros in three payments by 31.07.2024 and a separate 1 275 euros in costs by the same date. Terminate proceedings and allocate costs under the agreement. Refund the claimant a 315 euro fee after entry into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Terminate proceedings on Weki Ehitus OÜ’s debt claim against Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 30 korteriühistu.
First instance
Case 2-21-8392Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Viru tn 20 korteriühistu · 80352766

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

How it started · editorial summary

The court approved a settlement between the association and universal successor Narva linn for payment of 2 080.24 euros.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-21-8392/34Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Viru tn 20: agreement with Narva linn on payment of costs

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Viru tn 20 korteriühistu · Narva linn (Narva Linnavalitsuse Linnamajandusameti kaudu) · 80352766 · 75039729

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, Viru tn 20 korteriühistu; Original person concerned — XX; Universal successor — Narva linn (Narva Linnavalitsuse Linnamajandusameti kaudu); Participants’ representatives — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The court approved a settlement between the association and universal successor Narva linn for payment of 2 080.24 euros.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Viru tn 20 korteriühistu and Narva linn settled a management-cost claim. The court approved payment of 2 080.24 euros and ended the case. The original claim was against XX. Narva linn entered as universal successor, acting through Narva Linnavalitsuse Linnamajandusamet. The participant is the city itself through its department, not a separate municipal company. Original objections to the charges are not described in detail. Narva linn must pay the association 2 080.24 euros within three days after the order enters into force. This includes 1 549.84 euros in management-cost arrears through 31 May 2023 and 530.40 euros in litigation costs. The court found the terms permissible and enforceable without separately adjudicating the original dispute. Each bears other costs; the association was awarded a 25-euro state-fee refund. The request to shorten the appeal period to three days was refused: the court did not permit that agreement for this form of proceedings. The period remained 15 days from service. The payment and refund obligations do not establish actual transfers.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the settlement: Narva linn (Narva Linnavalitsuse Linnamajandusameti kaudu) pays the association 2 080.24 euros, including 1 549.84 euros in debt through 31 May 2023 and 530.40 euros in costs, within three days after entry into force. End proceedings; participants bear other costs. Refund 25 euros in state fees. Refuse the request to shorten the appeal period.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. End the proceedings in civil case no. 2-21-8392.
First instance
Case 2-20-129668Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Spordi tn 4 korteriühistu · 80289606

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

How it started · editorial summary

The applicant association Spordi tn 4’s code was corrected in an earlier debt ruling. The debt was not reconsidered on its merits.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-20-129668/54Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Spordi tn 4: court corrected association registration code in an earlier ruling

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Spordi tn 4 korteriühistu · 80289606

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, Spordi tn 4 korteriühistu; interested person XX; association’s representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

The applicant association Spordi tn 4’s code was corrected in an earlier debt ruling. The debt was not reconsidered on its merits.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court corrected the apartment association Narva linn, Spordi tn 4’s registration code in the ruling of 1 July 2022. The rest of the earlier act was left unchanged. The original case concerned the association’s debt application against interested person XX. The new ruling reveals only that the application was partly granted in 2022. It does not state the amount awarded, debt arguments or reasons for partial success. The court found the earlier act stated 80189247 instead of the association’s correct code 80289606. It considered this an obvious inaccuracy with no effect on the substance of the dispute resolved. The ruling of 3 April 2024 directed that 80289606 be treated as correct throughout the earlier ruling, that a correction note be added and that the new ruling be served on all recipients of the earlier one. It contains no reconsideration or new debt award.

Outcome of this decision

In the ruling of 01.07.2022 in case 2-20-129668, treat association code 80289606 as correct instead of 80189247. Leave the remainder unchanged, add a correction note and serve recipients of the earlier act.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Uphold the Viru Maakohus ruling of 01.07.2022 in all other respects.
First instance
Case 2-23-151610Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Partisani tn 3 korteriühistu · 80175376

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

How it started · editorial summary

Three persons XX agreed to repay a joint and several debt to the association by instalments.

· Court orderViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-23-151610/5Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Joint and several debt repayment by instalments

Court order · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Partisani tn 3 korteriühistu · 80175376

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, Partisani tn 3 korteriühistu; three persons concerned XX — joint and several debtors

How it started · editorial summary

Three persons XX agreed to repay a joint and several debt to the association by instalments.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Partisani tn 3 korteriühistu sought payment of a debt from three persons XX. The court approved their settlement and terminated proceedings without deciding the original dispute on its merits. Liability is joint and several: the unpaid balance may be claimed from any debtor, without recovering the same sum twice. Debt and late-payment interest are payable by monthly instalments; the obligation includes 100 euros, representing half of the expedited payment-order costs, and 50 euros in collection costs. A delay in more than two instalments allows enforcement of the balance through a bailiff. Other costs remain with the participants; 100 euros in state fees are to be refunded to the association. The participants excluded an appeal. Subsequent performance is not established.

Outcome of this decision

Settlement approved and proceedings terminated; the balance may be enforced if more than two instalments are overdue.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Terminate proceedings in civil case no. 2-23-151610.
First instance
Case 2-24-100102Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 9 korteriühistu · 80175328

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

How it started · editorial summary

The association and debtor XX agreed to repay the debt by instalments. The court approved the settlement and ended proceedings.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-24-100102/6Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Pähklimäe tn 9: debt instalments and consequences of breach

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 9 korteriühistu · 80175328

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 9 korteriühistu; Person concerned, debtor and settlement party — XX; Association’s representative — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association and debtor XX agreed to repay the debt by instalments. The court approved the settlement and ended proceedings.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court approved a settlement between Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 9 korteriühistu and debtor XX for payment by instalments. Proceedings ended on the agreed terms. The association initially sought a payment order for debt, late-payment interest and costs. After service, the parties submitted a settlement. The case went to Viru Maakohus, which requested clarification and considered the signed version. The order does not describe substantive objections to the charges. The debtor acknowledged management-cost arrears, accrued late-payment interest, 65 euros in state fees and 148.20 euros in legal costs. Monthly instalments were agreed. Breach allows the association to enforce the entire unpaid balance and claim late-payment interest of 0.03% per day on unpaid management costs. This is a term for a possible breach, not a finding that breach occurred. The court approved the lawful, permissible settlement on 19 February 2024. Each bears unspecified costs. The underlying charging dispute was not separately adjudicated. Approval of the schedule proves neither payment nor that the debt remains outstanding today.

Outcome of this decision

Approve monthly instalments covering debt, accrued late-payment interest, 65 euros in state fees and 148.20 euros in legal costs. On breach, the association may enforce the balance and claim 0.03% daily late-payment interest on unpaid management costs. Participants bear unspecified costs. End proceedings.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Leave each party to bear litigation costs not specified in the settlement.
First instance
Case 2-21-8475Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Viru tn 20 korteriühistu · 80352766

Damage and insuranceFireAmount of compensationRepairs and shared propertyBasement, stairwell and shared rooms

How it started · editorial summary

The apartment association Viru tn 20 sought restoration costs for a shared stairwell after a fire; Narva linn entered as legal successor to original participant XX.

· Ruling approving a settlement and terminating proceedingsViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-21-8475/27Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Apartment association Viru tn 20 and Narva linn agreed compensation for damage and costs

Ruling approving a settlement and terminating proceedings · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Viru tn 20 korteriühistu · Narva linn · Narva Linnavalitsuse Linnamajandusamet · 80352766 · · 75039729

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, Viru tn 20 korteriühistu; interested person — Narva linn through Narva Linnavalitsuse Linnamajandusamet; original interested person XX — replaced by a legal successor

How it started · editorial summary

The apartment association Viru tn 20 sought restoration costs for a shared stairwell after a fire; Narva linn entered as legal successor to original participant XX.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Viru tn 20 korteriühistu applied for reimbursement of costs of remedying the consequences of the fire of 19 August 2019. It referred to soot and water damage in the shared stairwell and expenses of 4 767,29 euros. The demand was originally against owner XX; the court later allowed substitution by Narva linn as universal legal successor. In this case the city acted through Narva Linnavalitsuse Linnamajandusamet, rather than as a separate municipal company. After court-allowed negotiation time, the participants submitted an agreement on 31 January 2024. The city undertook to pay the association 3 986,69 euros: 3 178,19 euros for damage and 808,50 euros in costs. Payment is due within three days after entry into force of the ruling approving the settlement and ending the case. Association costs above the agreed 808,50 euros and the city’s own costs remained with the respective participants. The court found the parties entitled to dispose of the dispute and the terms admissible and enforceable. It approved the agreement and terminated proceedings without separately deciding the basis of liability for the fire. The association was also released from reimbursing the state for earlier legal aid, with those costs left to the budget. The association is to receive 25 euros back, half the fee paid. Participants also shortened the appeal period against the ruling to three days after service.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the settlement: Narva linn through Linnamajandusamet pays the association 3 986,69 euros, including 3 178,19 euros for damage and 808,50 euros in costs, within three days after entry into force. Terminate the case. Leave other costs to participants; do not recover state legal aid costs from the association, leaving them to the budget. Refund the association a 25 euro fee.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Terminate proceedings in civil case No 2-21-8475.
First instance
Case 2-21-10232Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Madise tn 1, Madise tn 3, Malmi tn 3, Malmi tn 5 korteriühistu · 80152178

Apartment association meetings and decisionsVoting and representationBudget, management plan and ratesDocuments and informationReporting and review of expenditure

How it started · editorial summary

XX challenged written resolutions on the association’s report and management plan. The first-instance dismissal was ultimately restored by Riigikohus, while costs were allocated differently across the instances.

· Court orderViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-21-10232/44Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Written voting on an association’s report and management plan

Court order · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Madise tn 1, Madise tn 3, Malmi tn 3, Malmi tn 5 korteriühistu · 80152178

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — XX; Person concerned — Narva linn, Madise tn 1, Madise tn 3, Malmi tn 3, Malmi tn 5 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

XX challenged written resolutions on the association’s report and management plan. The first-instance dismissal was ultimately restored by Riigikohus, while costs were allocated differently across the instances.

The dispute and the court’s decision

XX sought to have resolutions of Narva linn, Madise tn 1, Madise tn 3, Malmi tn 3, Malmi tn 5 korteriühistu, recorded on 28.04.2021, declared void or invalidated. They approved the 2020 report and 2021 management and works plan by written voting without a meeting. XX alleged missing board signatures on the report, deficiencies in the plan and failure to meet a unanimity requirement under the articles. The first-instance court found that the documents had been circulated in advance and XX could participate. It treated missing signatures as a formal defect that had not materially misrepresented the association’s finances in this case. It considered the plan sufficiently informative. It rejected an interpretation requiring every member to participate and found a quorum. The court also considered later resolutions with the same content. It dismissed the application on its merits rather than leaving it unexamined, and imposed costs on XX. On 20 December 2024, Tartu Ringkonnakohus reversed the dismissal and declared the challenged points void. On 14 May 2025, however, Riigikohus restored the first-instance dismissal of the application. First-instance costs were left with the association, while appeal and Supreme Court costs were imposed on XX. The original allocation of all costs to XX was therefore not restored.

Outcome of this decision

The first-instance dismissal was reversed by Tartu Ringkonnakohus on 20 December 2024 and restored by Riigikohus on 14 May 2025. First-instance costs were allocated to the association, and appeal and Supreme Court costs to XX. The original allocation of all costs was not restored.

A checked extract in this language is not yet available.

First instance
Case 2-22-17238Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 4 korteriühistu · 80339391

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsPayment accounting and set-offLate-payment interest and consequences of delayWater and sewerageCalculation of water chargesRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairs

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought management and utility debts with late-payment interest. XX disputed the calculation and crediting of payments. The court granted only part of the claim, excluding unproved water charges.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-17238/22Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Partial debt award: accounting for payments and proving water charges

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 4 korteriühistu · 80339391

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 4 korteriühistu; Person concerned — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought management and utility debts with late-payment interest. XX disputed the calculation and crediting of payments. The court granted only part of the claim, excluding unproved water charges.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 4 korteriühistu sought unpaid management and utility charges and late-payment interest. XX challenged the calculation, alleged that payments had not been credited, and refused some maintenance and repair-fund charges without explanations of tariffs and evidence of work. The association repeatedly reduced its claim and acknowledged that some earlier payments had not been accounted for. The court examined invoices, bank records, tariff resolutions and supplier calculations. It rejected unilateral exclusion of maintenance and repair-fund contributions: they concerned the upkeep of the shared building, rather than only services actually used in a particular month. A separate entrance did not itself remove liability for common expenses. Differences between individual invoices were not considered sufficient proof of forgery. However, the court found the build-up of debt and allocation of payments difficult to follow. Part of the claim was proved, but some water charges lacked the necessary price information, supplier invoices, readings and calculation. The court excluded that part and granted the application in part. It awarded proved principal, accrued late-payment interest and continuing statutory late-payment interest from 17 November 2022 until the awarded principal is paid. Procedural costs were divided equally, with the amount to be determined separately.

Outcome of this decision

The application was granted in part: proved principal and late-payment interest were awarded, including continuing late-payment interest from 17 November 2022 until the awarded principal is paid. Unproved water charges were excluded. Each participant must bear 50% of the other’s costs; their amount will be determined separately after the order becomes final.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Grant the application of Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 4 korteriühistu in part.
First instance