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

Apartment association / building

Year of actCourt level

Reset all

Case 2-19-5769Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 33 korteriühistu · 80175469

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

How it started · editorial summary

The association proved unpaid charges; the court determined debt, late-payment interest and costs separately.

31.10.2019 · RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-19-5769/10Read actFirst instance31.10.2019

Separate act page

Kreenholmi 33: debt, late-payment interest and litigation costs awarded

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 33 korteriühistu · 80175469

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant – Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 33 korteriühistu; Interested person – owner XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association proved unpaid charges; the court determined debt, late-payment interest and costs separately.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court granted Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 33 korteriühistu’s demand against owner XX for building maintenance and utility arrears, accrued late-payment interest and litigation costs. The participant received the papers but gave no position and did not dispute the amounts. The court examined ownership, the articles, meeting decisions on payments and charging documents. On that basis it recognised the owner’s duty to contribute to expenses and found the arrears established. Continuing late-payment interest on unpaid principal was awarded at the changing statutory rate, rather than the fixed daily percentage proposed by the applicant. Statutory late-payment interest on the awarded litigation costs accrues from the ruling’s finality. Litigation costs totalled 179,50 euros and included the court fee, representative’s assistance and document translation. The ruling confirms an award, rather than actual receipt of money.

Outcome of this decision

Award debt, accrued late-payment interest and 179,50 euros in litigation costs against XX. Continuing interest on unpaid principal accrues at the statutory rate; interest on costs runs from the ruling’s finality until payment.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

1. Grant the application by Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 33 korteriühistu against XX for arrears.

Case 2-19-108315Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 6 korteriühistu · 80170791

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

How it started · editorial summary

The agreement makes late-payment interest relief conditional on following the debt schedule and regulates costs separately.

20.06.2019 · RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-19-108315/23Read actFirst instance20.06.2019

Separate act page

Võidu prospekt 6: instalments with conditional suspension of late-payment interest

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 6 korteriühistu · 80170791

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 6 korteriühistu; Interested person — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The agreement makes late-payment interest relief conditional on following the debt schedule and regulates costs separately.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 6 korteriühistu sought management cost debt from XX. The participants reached a settlement, which Viru Maakohus approved, terminating proceedings. The debtor acknowledged principal and accrued late-payment interest. Payment is provided over 17 months in monthly instalments. XX must also pay current association invoices within their stated deadlines. If the schedule is performed properly and on time, the association suspends late-payment interest on principal from the agreed date. On breach, the debtor loses that concession and late-payment interest on principal resumes from the same date. The agreement therefore grants conditional relief, rather than an unconditional waiver of all late-payment interest. XX must also pay the association 45 euros in court costs within three months of settlement approval. Delay in paying that particular sum carries late-payment interest of 0,2% per day on the unpaid balance. Each party bears other costs. The association was awarded a 25 euro refund, half the proper fee, and a separate 150 euro overpayment refund. The ruling does not confirm actual performance.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement and terminate the case. Debt and accrued late-payment interest are paid monthly over 17 months; current invoices are paid separately. Compliance suspends late-payment interest on principal from the agreed date; breach restarts it from that same date. Pay a further 45 euros in costs within three months, with late-payment interest of 0,2% per day if those costs are late. Refund the association a 25 euro fee and a 150 euro overpayment.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

II. Terminate the proceedings in civil case 2-19-108315 following approval of the settlement.

Case 2-17-19501Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 42 korteriühistu · 80175430

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

Latest prepared act · 20.05.2019 · № 2-17-19501/86

How it started · editorial summary

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

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 2

20.05.2019 · RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-17-19501/86Read actAppeal20.05.2019

Separate act page

Kangelaste 42: appeal refused admission in a simplified case

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Korteriühistu Kangelaste 42 · 80175430

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — Korteriühistu Kangelaste 42; Defendant and appellant — XX

How it started · editorial summary

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

The dispute and the court’s decision

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

Outcome of this decision

Refuse to admit XX’s appeal and deem it returned. Leave the state legal aid application undecided; no fee is payable for the appeal that was not admitted.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

Refuse to admit XX’s appeal against the Viru Maakohus judgment of 26 February 201 9 and deem the appeal returned to XX.

26.02.2019 · JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-19501/82Read actFirst instance26.02.2019

Separate act page

Association debt: crediting payments and interest across different periods

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 42 korteriühistu · 80175430

Entry into force has not been reverified

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

How it started · editorial summary

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

The dispute and the court’s decision

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

Outcome of this decision

The claim was granted: the association was awarded principal, accrued late-payment interest and continuing late-payment interest on unpaid principal from 1 January 2019 at the ECB rate determined for each half-year plus 8 percent annually until principal is paid. XX bears their own and the association’s costs, the latter to be fixed separately.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

Grant the claim.

Case 2-15-19307Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 45 korteriühistu · 80197258

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

How it started · editorial summary

The court granted the claim by default after no response within the time limit.

03.05.2019 · JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-19307/45Read actFirst instance03.05.2019

Separate act page

Puškini 45: debt awarded by default judgment

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Korteriühistu Puškini 45 · 80197258

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – Korteriühistu Puškini 45; Defendant – owner XX

How it started · editorial summary

The court granted the claim by default after no response within the time limit.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Korteriühistu Puškini 45 brought a claim against owner XX for management expense arrears and late-payment interest. Documents were served through a representative, and the court set a written response deadline and warned of a possible default judgment. The defendant neither responded nor objected in time. The association asked for a default decision. Viru Maakohus granted the claim. Under this procedure, the claimant’s factual allegations are deemed admitted because no timely response was made; the court also checks whether they legally support the demand. This is a procedural feature of a default judgment, rather than an account of the defendant’s position in the dispute. XX was ordered to pay principal and accrued late-payment interest. Continuing late-payment interest of 0,07% per day was awarded on principal until performance. The court also awarded 1 334,20 euros in litigation costs and statutory late-payment interest on their unpaid amount from finality until payment. The judgment was declared immediately enforceable without security. The defendant was informed of the right to apply to the county court to set aside the default judgment and reopen proceedings. As the judgment was to be served by public notice, the deadline is linked to when the defendant learned of the judgment or enforcement proceedings under it. This judgment does not confirm actual recovery of the sums.

Outcome of this decision

Award debt, accrued late-payment interest and 1 334,20 euros in costs against XX, plus continuing late-payment interest on the debt and costs. The default judgment is immediately enforceable without security.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

1. Grant the claim by default judgment.

Case 2-19-2415Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kalda tn 4 korteriühistu · 80338859

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsObligations of multiple ownersLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

How it started · editorial summary

The court required clear allocation of the demand between two co-owners and justification of late-payment interest.

15.03.2019 · RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-19-2415/3Read actFirst instance15.03.2019

Separate act page

Kalda 4: application for debt against two co-owners refused admission

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kalda tn 4 korteriühistu · 80338859

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant – Narva linn, Kalda tn 4 korteriühistu; Named debtors – co-owners XX and XX

How it started · editorial summary

The court required clear allocation of the demand between two co-owners and justification of late-payment interest.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court refused to accept the association’s application because defects were not remedied. Narva linn, Kalda tn 4 korteriühistu sought utility arrears from XX and XX. The apartment belonged to two persons as co-owners in shares. Viru Maakohus required clarification of the demand, but the defects were not remedied in time. The court stated that the application must make each participant’s liability clear. In particular, the association had not explained whether it sought each person’s share of the debt or considered either person liable for the whole amount. The latter means joint and several liability and requires a legal basis to be stated. The court found that the materials did not justify an award of the total against both as joint and several debtors. The late-payment interest calculation and accrual period were also unclear. The court could not supplement or change the subject matter on the applicant’s behalf. The application was refused and returned to the association with attachments. All litigation costs were left with the association. It was informed of the right to request a fee refund separately. This ruling does not determine the existence of utility debt on the merits or establish each co-owner’s final monetary obligations. Its reason is an unclear demand that the association did not clarify after the court’s directions.

Outcome of this decision

Refuse to accept the application; return the papers to the association. The applicant bears costs. A court fee refund may be sought by separate application.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

3. Narva linn, Kalda tn 4 korteriühistu shall bear the litigation costs.

Case 2-19-102905Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 46 korteriühistu · 80170555

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

How it started · editorial summary

The agreement provides for five payments and no additional late-payment interest until the agreed schedule ends.

15.03.2019 · RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-19-102905/3Read actFirst instance15.03.2019

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 46: debt repayment schedule approved with late-payment interest suspended

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 46 korteriühistu · 80170555

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant – Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 46 korteriühistu; Debtor – XX

How it started · editorial summary

The agreement provides for five payments and no additional late-payment interest until the agreed schedule ends.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court approved a debt repayment settlement and terminated payment order proceedings. Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 46 korteriühistu had sought recovery of arrears from XX in expedited payment order proceedings. After the payment proposal was sent, the participants settled and submitted the agreement to Viru Maakohus for approval. The court found it permissible and terminated proceedings. The debtor acknowledged arrears in mandatory payments, accrued late-payment interest, 22,50 euros* towards the court fee and 89,62 euros in legal expenses. The schedule provides for five payments. Until the end of the agreed schedule, the association will not charge additional late-payment interest on unpaid sums. If the debtor misses a payment, the full agreed amount becomes immediately payable. Each participant bears expenses not provided for in the agreement. In the operative part, the court ordered a refund to the association of half the fee, 22,50 euros*. The participants excluded the right to appeal the ruling. It records acknowledgment of the debt and how it is to be paid, but does not confirm receipt of payments. After termination by agreement, the same dispute between the same participants on the same grounds cannot be started again.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement to pay the debt, late-payment interest, 22,50 euros* towards the court fee and 89,62 euros in legal expenses in five payments. No additional interest is charged until the agreed schedule ends. A missed payment makes the full agreed sum immediately payable. Terminate proceedings; order refund of 22,50 euros* in court fees to the association.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

3. The parties shall bear their own litigation costs not specified in the settlement.

Case 2-18-13892Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 7 korteriühistu · 80175771

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

How it started · editorial summary

The court determined the claim by default after no response to the served documents.

02.01.2019 · JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-18-13892/3Read actFirst instance02.01.2019

Separate act page

Kreenholmi 7: debt and fee awarded by default

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 7 · 80175771

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — KÜ Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 7; Defendant — owner XX

How it started · editorial summary

The court determined the claim by default after no response to the served documents.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court awarded the association debt and a 175 euro fee by default. KÜ Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 7 brought an unpaid utilities claim against owner XX. It alleged that some payments had not arrived and sought principal and accrued late-payment interest. The court sent the documents to the defendant, allowed 20 days after service for a written response and warned of a default judgment. The documents were served but no response arrived in time. The association had requested default determination if no response was submitted. Viru Maakohus granted the claim by default judgment. Under that procedure, the claimant’s factual assertions are treated as admitted because of non-response; the court checks their legal sufficiency. Principal and accrued late-payment interest were awarded against XX. The association also sought 240 euros in costs, but the court awarded only the 175 euro fee paid. It refused 65 euros in legal costs: the application was signed by the association’s statutory representative and, in the court’s view, no contractual representative participated. The judgment is immediately enforceable. The defendant was informed of the right to apply to set aside the default judgment (kaja) to reopen proceedings. The awards do not confirm actual recovery.

Outcome of this decision

Award debt and a 175 euro fee against XX. Refuse 65 euros in legal costs. The judgment is immediately enforceable.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

4. The default judgment is immediately enforceable.

Case 2-16-109666Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Juuli tn 7 korteriühistu · 80145988

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayLimitation of claimsWater and sewerageMeters and readingsCalculation of water charges

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought additional water debt of a former owner from the purchaser after auction. The court refused recovery on good-faith grounds and inadequate proof of the calculation; it did not establish limitation.

04.09.2018 · JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-109666/60Read actFirst instance04.09.2018

Separate act page

Old water debt discovered after auction: claim against the purchaser dismissed

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, 26. juuli tn 7 korteriühistu · 80145988

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — Narva linn, 26. juuli tn 7 korteriühistu; Defendant, purchaser of the property — XX; Third party supporting the defendant, former owner — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, 26. juuli tn 7 korteriühistu, formerly KORTERIÜHISTU 26. JUULI 7 NARVA, sought a former owner’s debt and late-payment interest from purchaser XX. A meter check after the auction revealed differences from previously reported water readings. The purchaser objected that the debt disclosed at purchase had been paid and that the association had not notified the bailiff of the additional claim beforehand. Applying the law in force when the obligations arose, the court accepted the good-faith objection. It found that the association had not properly checked the data over a prolonged period or explained why the extra debt was not identified before sale. On these facts, later claiming it from this purchaser was inconsistent conduct. The documents also did not allow verification of monthly charges, payments and late-payment interest. The court could not therefore establish when obligations became due or decide the limitation defence. Dismissal was not based on a finding that the whole claim was time-barred. Debt and late-payment interest were refused. The association must bear its own, the defendant’s and the third party’s costs, with amounts determined separately.

Outcome of this decision

The additional debt and late-payment interest claim was dismissed. The court found recovery from this purchaser contrary to good faith and the calculation insufficiently proved; limitation was not established. The association bears participants’ costs as ordered, with their amount fixed separately.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

Dismiss the debt claim brought by Narva linn, 26. juuli tn 7 korteriühistu (former name: KORTERIÜHISTU 26. JUULI 7 NARVA) against XX.

Case 2-16-129462Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 47b korteriühistu · 80145356

Contracts and servicesWorks contracts and designQuality and acceptance of worksPayment, advance payments and refundsRepairs and shared propertyFaçade, windows and balconiesOrganisation and funding of repairsApartment association bills, payments and debtsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayPayment accounting and set-off

Latest prepared act · 14.06.2018 · № 2-16-129462/83

How it started · editorial summary

The appeal court rejected the association’s repair reimbursement claim and retained its obligation to pay the contractor, adding late-payment interest. Evidence of defects at the alleged time and notification was insufficient.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 2 · Unprepared stages: 1

14.06.2018 · JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-16-129462/83Read actAppeal14.06.2018

Separate act page

Kangelaste 47b: appeal court rejected association’s repair correction costs and awarded payment to contractor

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ Kangelaste 47b · Mirstart OÜ · 80145356 · 1123439

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: contractor Mirstart OÜ – claimant and defendant to the joined demand, appellant; apartment association – customer, defendant and claimant on the joined demand, appellant; parties’ representatives and expert XX

How it started · editorial summary

The dispute and the court’s decision

The circuit court allowed Mirstart OÜ’s appeal and dismissed the apartment association Kangelaste 47b’s appeal. After review, the association was ordered to pay the contractor 3 039,27* euros in outstanding fees, 1 017,61 euros in accrued late-payment interest and continuing statutory late-payment interest. The association’s claim for the cost of correcting works was dismissed. The contractor repaired the plinth and lintel and installed two canopies. The association alleged that facing panels began detaching and that the contractor had been notified but did not remedy the defects. It hired another company and sought reimbursement, taking account of the unpaid part of the original work. The contractor disputed the defects at the stated time and proper notification. The first-instance court granted the contractor’s monetary claim without interest, recognised the association’s claim and set them off. The association appealed only the allocation of costs; the contractor appealed the award to the association and refusal of interest. The circuit court assessed the evidence differently. Photographs from September 2016 did not establish the state of works in summer 2015: by the time of photography, the new contractor could already have started dismantling. A copy of a letter did not prove receipt. Board minutes without the contractor representative’s signature proved neither participation nor notification of defects. A new paid contract for filling joints also did not prove an agreement to remedy defects in the former work. It contained no such reference. The association had not proved defects at the alleged time, notification or a deadline for remedy; the contractual procedure for engaging an expert had also not been followed. The set-off and earlier award in favour of the association were therefore set aside. Costs at both levels were imposed on the association, to be quantified separately by the county court. Dismissal of the association’s claim concerns proof of the conditions for liability, rather than an established absence of any defects in the repairs.

Outcome of this decision

Grant Mirstart OÜ’s claim and dismiss the association’s claim. Award 3 039,27* euros in principal, 1 017,61 euros in accrued late-payment interest and statutory late-payment interest on principal from the judgment date until payment against the association. Allow the contractor’s appeal and dismiss the association’s. The association bears costs at both levels, to be quantified separately.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

4. Allow Mirstart OÜ’s appeal.

09.11.2017 · JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-129462/71Read actFirst instance09.11.2017

Separate act page

Kangelaste 47b and Mirstart OÜ: defective works, costs and set-off

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Mirstart OÜ · KÜ Kangelaste 47b · 11234391 · 80145356

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and counterclaim defendant — Mirstart OÜ; defendant and counterclaimant — KÜ Kangelaste 47b

How it started · editorial summary

Defects justified withholding payment and recovery of repair costs, with the final result determined by set-off.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Kangelaste 47b (now — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 47b korteriühistu). Mirstart OÜ sought the outstanding price of construction works and late-payment interest from KÜ Kangelaste 47b. The association counterclaimed for the cost of remedying defects. The cases were joined after proceedings on earlier default judgments were reopened. The works included renewal of the plinth and paving and installation of canopies. The court found the defective cladding proved by photographs: tiles had fallen off extensively soon after handover. Acceptance did not prevent reliance on defects. The documents as a whole showed timely knowledge by the contractor, which failed to remedy them within a reasonable time. Third-party repair costs of 5544 euros were found necessary and reasonable. Lawful withholding of the price balance was temporary; the court did not find a price reduction or effective withdrawal from the contract. Once the cost claim was allowed, the basis for withholding ended, so principal of 3039.27 euros* was upheld. Late-payment interest of 683.21 euros was refused because lawful withholding was not late performance. Further late-payment interest was also refused because the mutual claims were set off. The court allowed the counterclaim and applied set-off, awarding the association 2500 euros* against Mirstart OÜ. Each party bears its costs. Payment of that award was not established.

Outcome of this decision

The principal claim was allowed for 3039.27 euros* without late-payment interest; following the counterclaim and set-off, 2500 euros* was awarded to the association against Mirstart OÜ.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

5. Each party shall bear its own costs.

Not prepared yet

07.06.2017 · Case 2-16-129462

Case 2-17-9837Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Turu tn 3 korteriühistu · 80228912

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayObligations of multiple owners

How it started · editorial summary

The court did not examine the debt on its merits: under the legal assistance treaty applied, it lacked jurisdiction to resolve the dispute against these defendants.

27.04.2018 · RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-9837/11Read actFirst instance27.04.2018

Separate act page

Turu tn 3: debt claim left without examination for lack of Estonian court jurisdiction

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Turu tn 3 korteriühistu · 80228912

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant – apartment association; defendants – three owners XX; association representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

The court did not examine the debt on its merits: under the legal assistance treaty applied, it lacked jurisdiction to resolve the dispute against these defendants.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court left the claim by Narva linn, Turu tn 3 korteriühistu, also called NARTUR-3, against three owners XX without examination. It considered that it had no power to decide the case under the international jurisdiction rules applied. The debt itself was not examined on its merits. The association sought utility arrears and late-payment interest jointly and severally. Such an award would mean a shared obligation, rather than a separate full amount from each defendant. After unsuccessful delivery to the apartment address, the court investigated where the defendants lived. On the information received and the court’s findings, they lived in Russia and were Russian citizens. The court sent requests for consent to hearing the dispute in Estonia. The requests were received, but none supplied written consent. Applying the Estonian-Russian legal assistance treaty then in force, the court linked jurisdiction to the defendants’ residence or the parties’ written consent. Absence of that consent led it to leave the claim without examination. The court explained the possibility of bringing the same demand again; it did not declare that the debt was absent. Costs were left with the association, with no specific amounts reimbursable to other participants. The association was informed of its right to request a refund of the 125-euro court fee paid; this ruling did not itself order a refund.

Outcome of this decision

Leave the association’s claim against three defendants XX without examination. The association bears costs; no amounts are reimbursable to other participants.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

2. Korteriühistu NARTUR -3 shall bear the litigation costs. There are no reimbursable litigation costs in the case.

Case 2-17-126066Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Hariduse tn 26 korteriühistu · 80218606

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

How it started · editorial summary

With no responses to the personally served claim, the court awarded the association debt, accrued interest and costs jointly and severally against two defendants by default.

17.04.2018 · JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-126066/5Read actFirst instance17.04.2018

Separate act page

Hariduse 26: debt, interest and costs awarded against two defendants by default

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KORTERIÜHISTU HARIDUSE 26 NARVA · 80218606

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — apartment association; two defendants XX; association’s representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

With no responses to the personally served claim, the court awarded the association debt, accrued interest and costs jointly and severally against two defendants by default.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court granted KORTERIÜHISTU HARIDUSE 26 NARVA’s claim against two defendants XX by default. The documents were served personally, but no timely responses arrived. Principal, accrued interest and court costs were awarded jointly and severally. This is a common obligation: the association may seek the unpaid awarded amount from either defendant within its limits without receiving the entire sum twice. The short act does not set out detailed circumstances of the charges or the interest calculation. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security but does not confirm actual payment.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the claim by default: award principal, accrued interest and costs against the two defendants jointly and severally. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

3. The default judgment is immediately enforceable without security.

Case 2-17-15963Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 22 korteriühistu · 80189336

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

How it started · editorial summary

The defendant did not respond after public service of the claim; the court awarded debt, interest and the fee by default.

03.04.2018 · JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-15963/8Read actFirst instance03.04.2018

Separate act page

Puškini 22: default award of debt and interest, legal costs refused

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Aleksander Puškini tn 22 korteriühistu · 80189336

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — Narva linn, Aleksander Puškini tn 22 korteriühistu; Defendant — owner XX

How it started · editorial summary

The defendant did not respond after public service of the claim; the court awarded debt, interest and the fee by default.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court granted Narva linn, Aleksander Puškini tn 22 korteriühistu’s debt and interest claim against XX by default. The claim documents were served publicly through Ametlikud Teadaanded, with 14 days to respond and a warning of default judgment. No response arrived; the court treated the claimant’s facts as procedurally admitted. Principal and accrued interest were awarded. The court divided further interest on unpaid principal according to the periods of the rules applied: 0,07% per day from 1 October to 31 December 2017, and from 1 January 2018 until payment, the statutory annual rate of the ECB’s main refinancing operations, determined for each half-year, plus 8 percentage points. The association was awarded a 125 euro fee. Legal costs of 60 euros were refused: it acted through a statutory representative and had no contractual representative in the proceedings. The judgment is immediately enforceable but does not confirm actual payment.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the claim by default. Award further interest on unpaid principal at 0,07% per day from 1 October to 31 December 2017, and from 1 January 2018 at the statutory annual ECB rate stated in the act plus 8 percentage points. Award a 125 euro fee; refuse 60 euros in legal costs. The judgment is immediately enforceable.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

8. The judgment is immediately enforceable.