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 2-22-139489Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 10b korteriühistu · 80145534

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesLate-payment interest and consequences of delayHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesWater and sewerageCalculation of water chargesRepairs and shared propertyFaçade, windows and balconiesOrganisation and funding of repairs

How it started · editorial summary

The court required evidence of tariffs and services despite the absence of a response.

30.11.2023 · Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-139489/31Read actFirst instance30.11.2023

Separate act page

Checking the basis of management charges

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 10b korteriühistu · 80145534

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 10b korteriühistu; person concerned XX — debtor

How it started · editorial summary

The court required evidence of tariffs and services despite the absence of a response.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 10b korteriühistu claimed management-charge arrears and accrued late-payment interest from XX. After unsuccessful service of a payment proposal, the case was transferred to the county court. The court deemed documents served through the letterbox once procedural conditions were satisfied; XX did not respond. The court requested further evidence of the basis of the charges. The charter, meeting decisions on tariffs and a facade fund, supplier contracts and heating and water-circulation calculations proved the obligation and debt. The application was allowed. Principal, accrued late-payment interest, 470 euros in costs and statutory late-payment interest on costs from entry into force of the decision fixing them were awarded. Continuing late-payment interest on principal was not awarded in the operative part. Subsequent performance is not established.

Outcome of this decision

Application allowed; debt, accrued late-payment interest and 470 euros in costs with statutory late-payment interest on costs awarded.

A checked extract in this language is not yet available.

Case 2-21-6288Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12 korteriühistu · 80175498

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeVoting and representationBudget, management plan and ratesDocuments and informationInspection and copies of documentsReporting and review of expenditureApartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the boardRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairsParking and groundsConstruction of parking facilities

How it started · editorial summary

Nine applicants XX challenged the apartment association Kangelaste prospekt 12 written decisions for 2021; the association denied breaches.

15.11.2023 · Ruling leaving an application unexaminedViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-21-6288/16Read actFirst instance15.11.2023

Separate act page

Dispute over Kangelaste prospekt 12 decisions left unexamined after renewed confirmation

Ruling leaving an application unexamined · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12 korteriühistu · 80175498

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicants XX – nine individuals; interested person – Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

Nine applicants XX challenged the apartment association Kangelaste prospekt 12 written decisions for 2021; the association denied breaches.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Nine applicants XX sought a declaration that the Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12 korteriühistu decisions of 22 February 2021 were void, meaning without legal effect from adoption, or alternatively their invalidation. The written vote concerned accounts, management and repair plans, video surveillance, parking and board elections. The applicants relied on one participant not receiving drafts, deficiencies in financial documents and breaches of candidate nomination procedure. The association objected that drafts were sent, papers were made available for inspection, accounts had been checked and alternative candidates received insufficient votes. The court did not decide these disagreements on their merits. Register data showed that the general meeting of 15 March 2022 had confirmed the 2021 decisions. The court found no information that the new decision had been challenged. It asked the applicants to explain their continuing personal legal interest in review of the former vote and substantiate invalidation. No response arrived in time. The court considered that the old decisions’ legal effects could no longer be removed by this application: the same provisions applied under the new, unchallenged decision. The applicants explained no other independent interest. The application was therefore left unexamined. This is not a judicial finding that the original procedure was lawful or a rejection of nullity arguments on their merits. Each participant bears its own costs, which the court did not quantify. The court clarified the challenged decisions’ date from the minutes as 22 February, although applicants initially gave 14 February 2021.

Outcome of this decision

Leave the application to declare the decisions of 22.02.2021 void or invalidate them unexamined. Leave costs with the participants who incurred them, without quantification.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

2. The participants shall bear their own litigation costs. Given this allocation, the court will not quantify them.

Case 2-23-11384Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Vestervalli tn 6 korteriühistu · 80170874

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeArticles of association and amendmentsVoting and representationAgenda and minutesDocuments and informationInspection and copies of documentsReporting and review of expenditure

How it started · editorial summary

Applicant XX sought review of the apartment association Vestervalli tn 6 decisions of 12.06.2023 on the report and articles; the association denied the grounds.

10.11.2023 · Ruling on an application challenging general meeting decisionsViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-23-11384/19Read actFirst instance10.11.2023

Separate act page

Vestervalli tn 6: report approval declared void because provision of materials was not proved

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

Narva linn, Vestervalli tn 6 korteriühistu · 80170874

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant XX; interested person – Narva linn, Vestervalli tn 6 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

Applicant XX sought review of the apartment association Vestervalli tn 6 decisions of 12.06.2023 on the report and articles; the association denied the grounds.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Applicant XX challenged the Narva linn, Vestervalli tn 6 korteriühistu general meeting decisions of 12 June 2023 on the board’s 2022 report and a new version of the articles. XX alleged that annual accounts had not been received beforehand and that votes and participation by a person interested in changing payments were handled incorrectly in the articles vote. The association objected that only a board activity report was discussed, materials were sent and adoption of new articles was postponed altogether. The court first examined grounds for nullity, meaning no legal effect from adoption. It found that the association submitted an annual report to the register after the meeting and rejected the assertion that only an informal activity report was considered. The applicant had given the association an email address, so preparation materials had to be sent there. The original email supplied contained the agenda, but the court could not establish attachments. Their appearance in an email forwarded to the representative did not prove timely delivery to the applicant. Failure to provide the materials was a substantial defect in meeting preparation that prevented informed voting. The first decision, approving the board’s 2022 report, was declared void. For the articles, the result differed: the minutes showed postponement to the next meeting and no adoption of a new version. The court rejected that part because there was no decision to declare void or invalidate. It therefore did not examine vote counting or voting restrictions. As the application succeeded only partly, each participant retained its own costs.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the application in part: declare decision No. 1 approving the board’s 2022 report void. Dismiss the remainder. Each participant bears its own costs, which are not to be quantified.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

1. Grant the applicant’s application in part and declare decision number one of the Narva linn, Vestervalli tn 6 korteriühistu general meeting of 12.06.2023 — to approve the board’s 2022 report — void. Dismiss the application in all other respects.

Case 2-23-8203Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 18a korteriühistu · 80170383

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayApartment association meetings and decisionsQuorum and repeat meetingsRights in real propertyOwnership and register entries

How it started · editorial summary

The court distinguished debt recovery from compulsory transfer.

31.10.2023 · JudgmentViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-23-8203/9Read actFirst instance31.10.2023

Separate act page

Refusal of transfer claim and recovery of debt

Judgment · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 18a korteriühistu · 80170383

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 18a korteriühistu; defendant XX — owner

How it started · editorial summary

The court distinguished debt recovery from compulsory transfer.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 18a korteriühistu sought management-charge debt and compulsory transfer of XX’s apartment ownership. The defendant filed no objections. Only 23 of 90 members participated in the initial owners’ decision where a majority was required; the court held it void. A later decision was supported by 48 of 90. However, three months for voluntary transfer must expire after a valid demand before proceedings are brought; time cannot run from a void decision. The transfer claim was refused. Proven monetary debt, accrued and continuing statutory late-payment interest on the principal were awarded, together with 430* euros in costs and statutory late-payment interest on those costs from the judgment’s entry into force. Performance is not established.

Outcome of this decision

Compulsory transfer claim dismissed; debt, late-payment interest and 430* euros in costs awarded.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

1. Allow the claim of Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 18a korteriühistu in part.

Case 2-23-113419Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Uusküla tn 13 korteriühistu · 80015116

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsInstalments and payment schedules

How it started · editorial summary

Following partial payment of utility arrears, the participants agreed on the balance. The court approved the settlement but refused a refund of the payment-order fee.

19.10.2023 · Order approving a settlement and ending proceedingsViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-23-113419/14Read actFirst instance19.10.2023

Separate act page

Uusküla tn 13: outstanding debt and the state-fee refund

Order approving a settlement and ending proceedings · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Uusküla tn 13 korteriühistu · 80015116

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, Uusküla tn 13 korteriühistu; Person concerned — XX

How it started · editorial summary

Following partial payment of utility arrears, the participants agreed on the balance. The court approved the settlement but refused a refund of the payment-order fee.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Uusküla tn 13 korteriühistu sought utility arrears. After unsuccessful service of a payment proposal, the case went to the county court. The association reported partial repayment and the participants agreed on payment of the balance. XX agreed to pay the balance and, separately, 385.50 euros in costs within two months after the order enters into force, by instalments or in a single payment. Current bills remain payable; XX bears XX’s own costs. The court approved the settlement and ended the case. Each bears other costs, which were not separately quantified. Subsequent payment is not established. The association was refused a refund of 32.50 euros, half the 65-euro state fee. The fee had been paid in expedited payment-order proceedings; no additional fee was paid at county-court stage. The court applied a non-refund rule effective from February 2023. The general appeal period was reduced to two days; refusal of the fee refund was separately declared unappealable.

Outcome of this decision

Approve payment of the agreed debt balance and, separately, 385.50 euros in costs within two months after the order enters into force, by instalments or in one payment. Current bills remain payable. End proceedings; each bears other costs. Refuse the 32.50-euro state-fee refund.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

2. End the proceedings in civil case no. 2-23-113419.

Case 2-23-135924Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 69 korteriühistu · 80426523

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

How it started · editorial summary

The court approved monthly instalments. Additional time for voluntary payment depends on compliance with the schedule; performance is not established.

05.10.2023 · Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-23-135924/3Read actFirst instance05.10.2023

Separate act page

A. Puškini tn 69: additional time to pay the debt

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 69 korteriühistu · 80426523

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 69 korteriühistu; Debtor, party to the settlement — XX; Association’s representative — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The court approved monthly instalments. Additional time for voluntary payment depends on compliance with the schedule; performance is not established.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 69 korteriühistu and XX agreed to pay an acknowledged obligation by instalments. The court approved the settlement and ended proceedings. The participants submitted their written agreement before a payment order was issued; the papers were transferred to Viru Maakohus for approval. The order contains no independent examination of objections to the charges. The obligation includes management costs, other payments, late-payment interest and litigation costs. The association granted additional time for voluntary payment: equal monthly instalments and a separate final payment. A breach requires immediate performance of the entire agreed obligation; the association may claim late-payment interest of 0.02% per day from 1 October 2023 on unpaid management costs and other payments. The court checked that the terms were permissible and enforceable. Each participant bears other costs. The settlement is not a separate ruling that every charge was proved; actual performance of the schedule is not established.

Outcome of this decision

Approve monthly instalments with a separate final payment. Breach requires immediate performance of the entire agreed obligation; the association may claim late-payment interest of 0.02% per day from 1 October 2023 on unpaid management costs and other payments. End proceedings, allocate agreed costs accordingly and leave other costs to each participant.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

2. End the proceedings in civil case no. 2-23-135924.

Case 2-18-133659Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Joala tn 11 korteriühistu · 80189885

Contracts and servicesWorks contracts and designPayment, advance payments and refundsApartment association bills, payments and debtsLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

How it started · editorial summary

The appeal court replaced the dispute’s earlier result with a settlement between association and contractor. The association undertook to pay 3 356,20 euros and proceedings ended.

25.09.2023 · RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-18-133659/52Read actAppeal25.09.2023

Separate act page

Joala tn 11: appeal settlement with contractor approved in place of earlier judgment

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, Joala tn 11 korteriühistu · Katuse ABC OÜ · 80189885 · 11336757

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and respondent on appeal – Katuse ABC OÜ; defendant and appellant – Narva linn, Joala tn 11 korteriühistu; organisations’ representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

The appeal court replaced the dispute’s earlier result with a settlement between association and contractor. The association undertook to pay 3 356,20 euros and proceedings ended.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Narva linn, Joala tn 11 and Katuse ABC OÜ settled their works-contract payment dispute on appeal. The circuit court set aside the first-instance judgment, approved payment of 3 356,20 euros under a settlement and terminated proceedings. The contractor sought payment for works and late-payment interest. Viru Maakohus had previously granted the claim, awarding 2 556,20 euros in contractual fees, accrued interest and continuing interest of 0,05% per day. The association appealed, seeking dismissal and costs against the contractor. This ruling does not set out its objections’ detailed grounds. Before the appeal was decided, the parties submitted an agreement. The association undertook to pay the contractor 3 356,20 euros within five working days after it enters into force. Delay entails a contractual penalty of 0,03% of that sum for each day. This is a new settlement term and must not be confused with interest under the judgment set aside. The court checked that the agreement was enforceable and consistent with law, good morals and substantial public interest. It replaced wording on waiver of remaining claims with confirmation that only demands under the approved agreement remain in this case. The dispute thus ended by agreement, rather than an independent waiver of the contractor’s claim. Each party bears its own costs. The court ordered a refund to the association of 210 euros, half the appeal fee. Fees for earlier stages were not refunded because the settlement was reached on appeal. The parties waived appeal against the ruling, and the court stated that no appeal was permitted. The document does not confirm actual payment of the agreed sum.

Outcome of this decision

Set aside the Viru Maakohus judgment of 27.06.2022, approve the settlement and terminate proceedings. The association pays Katuse ABC OÜ 3 356,20 euros within five working days after the agreement enters into force; delay entails a daily contractual penalty of 0,03% of that amount. Each bears its own costs. No demands remain in this case except those under the agreement. Refund the association 210 euros of the appeal fee.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

1.3. The parties shall bear their own litigation costs.

Case 2-21-2660Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 11 korteriühistu · 80170749

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeVoting and representationAgenda and minutesApartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the board

How it started · editorial summary

The written decisions on the board have no legal effect: the ballot questions did not show precisely what owners were voting on. The court did not separately assess whether enough votes were cast.

05.09.2023 · RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-21-2660/20Read actFirst instance05.09.2023

Separate act page

Kangelaste prospekt 11: written decisions on the board declared void because voting questions were unclear

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 11 korteriühistu · 80170749

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant XX – owner; interested person – Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 11 korteriühistu; applicant’s representative XX; association representative XX; board candidates XX

How it started · editorial summary

The written decisions on the board have no legal effect: the ballot questions did not show precisely what owners were voting on. The court did not separately assess whether enough votes were cast.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court declared the written decisions of owners of the apartment association Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 11 dated 22 December 2020 void. They had no legal effect from adoption because owners were not given clearly formulated voting questions. Applicant XX challenged a board election held without a meeting. The noticeboard named two issues: recalling the former board and electing a new board with a chair. The ballot, however, listed candidate names and for-or-against options without separating those issues. The applicant also alleged that the majority required by the articles had not been obtained. The association objected that the document’s substance mattered more than its title and the procedure had been followed. The board later decided not to implement the disputed decisions or change the register entry. The association proposed settlement with partial fee reimbursement. The applicant disagreed, including over costs allocation. The court found that the ballots did not make clear whether a vote meant recall of the old board or election of the new one. In a written vote, owners must have a clear draft decision. Its absence and unclear questions were a substantial breach of decision-making procedure. Having established nullity, the court did not examine the sufficiency of votes as a separate ground for invalidation. The board’s refusal to implement the decisions and absence of a register entry did not remove the owner’s interest in judicial review: validity does not depend only on submission to the register. The ruling of 5 September 2023 granted the application. The applicant’s costs were imposed on the association, which must also bear its own. The court left monetary quantification for a separate decision after finality.

Outcome of this decision

Grant owner XX’s application and declare the association’s decisions of 22.12.2020 void. The association bears the applicant’s costs and its own. Quantify costs separately after the ruling becomes final.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

2. Declare the decisions of the apartment owners of Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 11 korteriühistu of 22.12.2020 void.

Case 2-22-9914Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Uusküla tn 1 korteriühistu · 80175825

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

How it started · editorial summary

The association withdrew after voluntary payments. The court ended the case and ordered XX to pay 100 euros in costs.

25.08.2023 · Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-9914/15Read actFirst instance25.08.2023

Separate act page

Uusküla tn 1: withdrawal of a debt claim

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Uusküla tn 1 korteriühistu · 80175825

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, Uusküla tn 1 korteriühistu; Person concerned, debtor — XX; Association’s representative — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association withdrew after voluntary payments. The court ended the case and ordered XX to pay 100 euros in costs.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court accepted Narva linn, Uusküla tn 1 korteriühistu’s withdrawal of its debt application and ended the proceedings. After the application was filed, debtor XX began making voluntary payments and the association decided not to pursue the principal claim. The association reported voluntary repayment and then withdrew, stating that the debt had been almost entirely paid. It still sought litigation costs and a refund of half the state fee. The person concerned agreed to termination and did not dispute the costs or the obligation to reimburse them. The court accepted the withdrawal and ended the case without separately deciding the original debt claim. Its allocation of costs relied on satisfaction of the claim after filing. The order of 25 August 2023 awarded 100 euros against XX: 75 euros in legal costs and 25 euros in non-refundable state fees. A further 25 euros in state fees was to be refunded to the association from the budget. No interest on litigation costs was awarded because the association had not requested it. The order did not separately establish a specific balance of the original debt.

Outcome of this decision

Accept the association’s withdrawal and end the proceedings. Order XX to bear the costs, pay 100 euros to the association and bear XX’s own costs. Refund 25 euros in state fees to the association.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

2. End the proceedings in civil case no. 2-22-9914.

Case 2-23-1645Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Madise tn 6 korteriühistu · 80551777

Rights in real property

How it started · editorial summary

The association withdrew its compulsory apartment sale claim. The court did not examine the merits and refused to compensate defendant XX for time spent preparing a personal defence.

09.08.2023 · RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-23-1645/34Read actFirst instance09.08.2023

Separate act page

I. Grafovi tn 6: apartment sale claim left unexamined; costs of self-representation not awarded

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, I. Grafovi tn 6 korteriühistu · 80551777

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant – Narva linn, I. Grafovi tn 6 korteriühistu; defendant XX – participated personally; association representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association withdrew its compulsory apartment sale claim. The court did not examine the merits and refused to compensate defendant XX for time spent preparing a personal defence.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Narva linn, I. Grafovi tn 6 withdrew its claim to require defendant XX to sell apartment ownerships. The court left the claim unexamined and did not award the defendant the requested 500 euros for preparing a defence personally. The association asked to end the case without examining its demands. The defendant did not object but sought compensation for studying the claim and legislation, analysing materials, consultations, drafting a response and translation. The calculation was based on the price of legal services. The association disputed whether the costs were justified and proved. The court applied the rules on withdrawal: after such a statement by the claimant, the demands remain unexamined. This ruling did not examine the grounds for compulsory disposal of the apartments. On costs, the court established that the defendant participated personally. The defendant signed the documents, and there was no power of attorney or evidence of a procedural representative’s involvement. The claimed value of the defendant’s own time studying law and preparing documents was not reimbursable representative’s costs. The ruling of 9 August 2023 refused reimbursement of 500 euros and left each participant to bear their own costs. Withdrawal was not treated as a decision on whether grounds for sale existed. The refusal of costs concerns the nature of the expenses actually claimed and the established personal participation.

Outcome of this decision

Leave the association’s claim against defendant XX for disposal of apartment ownerships unexamined. Each party bears its own costs; the defendant’s request for 500 euros was not granted.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

2. The parties shall bear their own litigation costs.

Case 2-23-6125Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Vahtra tn 4 korteriühistu · 80175765

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

How it started · editorial summary

After a report of payment, the association waived its demand. The court accepted the waiver, terminated the case and ordered a 150 euro fee refund to the association.

15.05.2023 · RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-23-6125/6Read actFirst instance15.05.2023

Separate act page

Vahtra tn 4: debt case terminated after association waived its demand, partial fee refund ordered

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Vahtra tn 4 korteriühistu · 80175765

Entry into force has not been reverified

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

How it started · editorial summary

After a report of payment, the association waived its demand. The court accepted the waiver, terminated the case and ordered a 150 euro fee refund to the association.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court terminated the case on the apartment association Narva linn, Vahtra tn 4’s application after it waived the demand. Interested person XX reported payment of the debt, and both participants signed the application to end the case. The association also sought refund of the excess fee paid and half the proper application fee. The participants agreed not to seek costs from each other. The ruling does not give the initial debt amount or detailed objections to charges. The court checked and accepted the waiver and ended proceedings without deciding the original demand. Each participant was left to bear their own costs; no inter-party reimbursement was awarded. The association paid a 175 euro fee on applying, whereas the required fee was 50 euros. The ruling of 15 May 2023 ordered refund of a 125 euro overpayment and 25 euros due to the waiver, totalling 150 euros. A budget refund must be distinguished from recovery against the interested person. Actual refund is not confirmed.

Outcome of this decision

Accept the association’s waiver and terminate proceedings. Leave costs to participants, with no mutual reimbursement. Refund the association a 150 euro fee.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

2. The parties shall bear their own procedural costs. There are no reimbursable procedural costs.

Case 2-23-110738Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Hariduse tn 26 korteriühistu · 80218606

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

How it started · editorial summary

The settlement distinguishes ordinary interest from consequences of breaching instalments.

23.03.2023 · Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-23-110738/3Read actFirst instance23.03.2023

Separate act page

Instalments and different interest conditions

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Hariduse tn 26 korteriühistu · 80218606

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, Hariduse tn 26 korteriühistu; debtor XX — party to the settlement

How it started · editorial summary

The settlement distinguishes ordinary interest from consequences of breaching instalments.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court approved an instalment settlement between Narva linn, Hariduse tn 26 korteriühistu and XX for acknowledged management charges and other payments and terminated proceedings. The settlement includes reimbursement of 32.50 euros of the association’s state fee, equal monthly instalments and a separate final payment. The order gives no detailed objections to the charges. Interest of 0.02% per day on unpaid management charges and other payments applies from 1 November 2023. Breach of the schedule makes the whole obligation immediately payable, with interest of 0.02% per day on the entire obligation from 1 April 2023. These are different conditions; the court did not establish a breach. Other costs remain with each participant. A state-budget refund of 32.50 euros in payment-order fees was refused; this does not cancel the debtor’s agreed reimbursement of that portion. Subsequent performance is not established.

Outcome of this decision

Settlement approved and proceedings terminated. The separate interest conditions remain; the state-fee refund was refused.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

2. Terminate proceedings in civil case no. 2-23-110738.