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 2-18-13888

Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 12 korteriühistu · 80508340

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

How it started · editorial summary

The association waived its debt claim; the court terminated the case.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-18-13888/8Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kreenholmi 12: debt case terminated after association waived its claim

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kreenholmi 12 Korteriühistu · 80508340

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — Narva linn, Kreenholmi 12 Korteriühistu; Defendant — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association waived its debt claim; the court terminated the case.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court terminated proceedings to recover principal after Narva linn, Kreenholmi 12 Korteriühistu waived its claim against XX. The association was to receive a refund of 37,50 euros, half the fee paid. The claim arrived on 17 September 2018 and was admitted on 4 October. On 30 November the association’s representative filed a waiver and requested half the fee back. The court accepted the waiver and ended proceedings on that ground. The ruling does not state the reason for waiver or report payment of the debt by the defendant. The result is therefore termination of the case, rather than a new debt award or an established repayment. The act contains no separate allocation of costs between the parties.

Outcome of this decision

Terminate the claim proceedings. Order a refund of 37,50 euros in fees to the association.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Terminate the proceedings in civil case No 2 -18-13888 […]
Case 2-18-112762

Narva linn, Joala tn 11 korteriühistu · 80189885

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

How it started · editorial summary

After debt payment, the association waived its claim; in the same ruling, the court awarded a 200 euro fee and refused 75 euros in legal costs.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-18-112762/14Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Joala 11: case terminated after debt payment, only the state fee awarded

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Joala tn 11 korteriühistu · 80189885

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — Narva linn, Joala tn 11 korteriühistu; Defendant — XX

How it started · editorial summary

After debt payment, the association waived its claim; in the same ruling, the court awarded a 200 euro fee and refused 75 euros in legal costs.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court accepted Narva linn, Joala tn 11 korteriühistu’s waiver of its claim against XX and terminated the case. A 200 euro fee was awarded against the defendant; reimbursement of 75 euros in legal costs was refused. The association initially sought a payment order for debt. After the defendant objected, the case was transferred to ordinary claim proceedings. The association sought debt and alleged that the owner had not paid service and utility charges. The association later reported that the defendant paid the debt in full after it applied to court. It therefore waived the claim but requested 275 euros in costs. The defendant submitted no written objections to the waiver or costs. The court accepted the waiver and allocated costs to the defendant because the claim was satisfied after filing. Of the costs sought, it accepted the 200 euro fee as reimbursable. It did not award 75 euros in legal costs: a board member represented the association and it had no contractual representative. The court also explained that following such termination the same claim against the same defendant on the same grounds cannot be brought again. The act does not confirm payment of the awarded costs.

Outcome of this decision

Accept waiver and terminate proceedings. Award the association a 200 euro fee against XX; do not award 75 euros in legal costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
4. Refuse Narva linn, Joala tn 11 korteriühistu’s request for XX to reimburse 75 euros in legal assistance costs.
Case 2-18-13864

Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 12 korteriühistu · 80508340

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

How it started · editorial summary

Different defendants were named in the debt claim; the required clarifications were not received.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-18-13864/3Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kreenholmi 12: claim refused admission because association did not clarify from whom it sought the debt

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva Linn, Kreenholmi 12 korteriühistu · 80508340

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – Narva Linn, Kreenholmi 12 korteriühistu; Two different individuals were named in the claim documents – XX and XX

How it started · editorial summary

Different defendants were named in the debt claim; the required clarifications were not received.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court refused to accept the claim for proceedings by Narva Linn, Kreenholmi 12 korteriühistu: the documents named different persons, and the association did not clear up that ambiguity in the time allowed. The defendant details and account of the circumstances referred to one person, but the relief sought requested debt recovery from another. The association did not explain why the second person should pay or supply sufficient identifying information for that person. On 19 September 2018, the court required defects to be remedied and allowed 14 days from service of the ruling for correction. The representative received it on 5 October; the defects were not remedied by 19 October. Other defects in the account of the claim’s circumstances also remained uncorrected. The court therefore refused to accept the claim for proceedings and explained return of the application and attachments. The ruling determines whether the filed documents were suitable to start the case. The amount of debt and any particular person’s obligation to pay were not established on their merits.

Outcome of this decision

Refuse to accept the claim for proceedings because defects concerning the defendant’s identity and circumstances of the demand were not remedied.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Refuse to accept for proceedings the debt claim by Narva Linn, Kreenholmi 12 korteriühistu against XX.
Case 2-18-13869

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 18a korteriühistu · 80170383

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

How it started · editorial summary

The claim was brought against a deceased person; the court refused to accept it for proceedings without deciding the debt on its merits.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-18-13869/2Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kangelaste 18a: debt claim refused admission because a deceased person was named as defendant

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 18a · 80170383

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – KÜ Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 18a; Person named as defendant – XX

How it started · editorial summary

The claim was brought against a deceased person; the court refused to accept it for proceedings without deciding the debt on its merits.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court refused to accept for proceedings the claim by KÜ Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 18a to recover a debt from XX. On examining the application, the court established from the population register that the named defendant had died. The association went to court on 17 September 2018. The court explained that an individual’s capacity to have civil rights and obligations ends at death, so the claim against this defendant could not achieve the result sought. That was the reason for refusing acceptance. The court also explained the association’s right to request a refund of the court fee paid separately. The operative part specifies neither the fee amount nor a refund. The existence and amount of debt were not examined on their merits. This ruling did not determine the liability of other persons, including through inheritance.

Outcome of this decision

Refuse to accept the debt claim for proceedings. Explain the association’s right to make a separate application for a court fee refund.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Refuse to accept for proceedings the statement of claim by KÜ Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 18a against XX for debt recovery.
Case 2-16-109666

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.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-109666/60Read actFirst instance

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 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.

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 2-18-5132

Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 38 korteriühistu · 80152617

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of charges

How it started · editorial summary

The parties disputed when the claimant’s demand was satisfied; that determined who should bear costs.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-18-5132/15Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kreenholmi 38: costs allocated to association after claimant waived the claim

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Kreenholmi 38 · 80152617

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — XX; Defendant — KÜ Kreenholmi 38

How it started · editorial summary

The parties disputed when the claimant’s demand was satisfied; that determined who should bear costs.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court accepted XX’s waiver of the claim against KÜ Kreenholmi 38 and terminated the case seeking a declaration of no debt. Costs were allocated to the association: it must pay the claimant 37,50 euros, and a further 37,50 euros in fees was ordered refunded from the budget after entry into force. The claimant applied on 3 April 2018 to challenge the charged debt. On 3 May, the claimant waived the claim because the demand had been satisfied and requested costs against the association. The association agreed to termination but insisted the dispute had been resolved before the claim was filed, so each should bear its own costs. The court disagreed. A March invoice attached to the claim still showed the disputed debt. It concluded that the association satisfied the demand immediately after the claim arrived. It also noted that the charging dispute had remained unresolved for more than a year since December 2016 while interest accrued. Seeking judicial protection was considered justified. The claimant paid a 75 euro fee. Due to waiver, the court ordered half refunded from the budget and awarded the other half against the association. There were no other proven costs. The ruling ended the case through waiver rather than a separate determination of the amount or absence of debt. Actual receipt of the awarded and refunded money is not confirmed.

Outcome of this decision

Accept waiver and terminate proceedings. The association bears costs: award the claimant 37,50 euros against it, with a further 37,50 euros in fees refunded from the budget after entry into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Accept XX’s waiver of the claim.
Case 2-18-9342

Narva linn, V. Gerassimovi tn 14 korteriühistu · 80152801

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

How it started · editorial summary

The association obtained a default award of debt and court costs. The court applied the consequences of no response to a served claim.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-18-9342/3Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

V. Gerassimovi tn 14: debt awarded by default after no response

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, V. Gerassimovi tn 14 korteriühistu · 80152801

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — apartment association; defendant XX — owner; association’s representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association obtained a default award of debt and court costs. The court applied the consequences of no response to a served claim.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court awarded Narva linn, V. Gerassimovi tn 14 korteriühistu debt against owner XX by default. The defendant did not respond after service of the documents and a warning of the consequences. The association alleged that the owner had not paid building maintenance and utility costs and sought recovery of the debt. The judgment contains no objections from the defendant. The court found that service was proper and the response period had expired. Under the default rules, it treated the association’s factual assertions as admitted and granted the claim based on the owner’s duty to pay maintenance costs. The act contains no detailed analysis of individual charges. The court also awarded 310 euros in costs: a 250 euro fee and 60 euros for a representative to prepare the claim. It found these necessary and justified. The judgment was made immediately enforceable; this does not confirm that the money has already been paid.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the claim by default judgment. Award the association debt and 310 euros in costs against XX. The judgment is immediately enforceable.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Grant the claim by default judgment.
Case 2-18-3506

Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 44 korteriühistu · 80158672

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claims

How it started · editorial summary

The association obtained a default award of debt and litigation costs after no response to the claim served by public notice.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-18-3506/8Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kreenholmi tn 44: debt and costs awarded by default after service of the claim by public notice

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 44 korteriühistu · 80158672

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant – apartment association; defendant XX – owner; association representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association obtained a default award of debt and litigation costs after no response to the claim served by public notice.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court awarded Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 44 korteriühistu building maintenance arrears and 325 euros in costs against owner XX by default. The defendant did not respond after service of the claim by public notice. The association sought payment of building maintenance charges. The court accepted the claim and stated that the papers were served through Ametlikud Teadaanded. The defendant was allowed 28 days to respond and warned of a possible default judgment, but no response arrived within that time. The court applied the default rules and granted the claim. Of the costs awarded, 175 euros was the court fee and 150 euros representative’s services. The text contains no detailed assessment of every charge. The judgment is immediately enforceable. The court also ordered service of it by public notice because no place for service or authorised recipient was known. The judgment provides that service is deemed completed 15 days after publication of the excerpt. This text establishes neither the actual publication date nor payment of the award.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the claim by default. Award the association debt and 325 euros in costs against XX: a 175-euro court fee and 150 euros for representative’s services. Make the judgment immediately enforceable and serve it by public notice; deem service completed 15 days after publication of the excerpt.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Grant the claim by default judgment.
Case 2-14-62722

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 42 korteriühistu · 80054903

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesChanges to or disconnection from heatingApartment association meetings and decisionsBudget, management plan and rates

Latest prepared act · · № 2-14-62722/89

How it started · editorial summary

The association and XX ended two opposing claims by agreement. Settlement of their mutual demands was made conditional on payment.

Related prepared acts from this case are also shown.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 2 · Unprepared stages: 1
· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-62722/89Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 42: mutual maintenance and heating dispute ended by a 5 000-euro agreement

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 42 korteriühistu · 80054903

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: apartment association – claimant in the debt claim and defendant in the other claim; XX – debt defendant and claimant in the charges dispute; parties’ representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association and XX ended two opposing claims by agreement. Settlement of their mutual demands was made conditional on payment.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court approved the agreement between Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 42 korteriühistu and XX to end two opposing claims concerning maintenance and heating. XX undertook to pay the association the agreed amount within three months after the agreement enters into force. The case involved the association’s debt claim and XX’s claim against it concerning charges. The ruling gives no detailed calculations or objections. After payment, the parties regard mutual demands for the agreed period as resolved: both unpaid invoices and possible recalculations in XX’s favour. The court checked the agreement’s permissibility and enforceability and terminated proceedings. It did not separately establish the correctness of every previous charge. The hearing was cancelled and each party bears its own costs; partial court fee refunds will be decided by separate rulings. This ruling establishes neither performance of the agreement nor refund of the fees.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement for XX to pay the association the agreed amount within three months after the agreement enters into force. After payment, mutual demands for the agreed period are settled. Terminate proceedings and cancel the hearing; each bears its own costs. Court fee refunds are decided separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Terminate proceedings in civil case No. 2-14-62722.
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-14-62722/55Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 42: heating charges, rates and clarification of claims

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ Tallinna mnt 42 · 80054903

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and appellant — owner XX; defendant — KÜ Tallinna mnt 42

How it started · editorial summary

A majority resolution does not replace all owners’ agreement on a different allocation of expenses.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Tallinna mnt 42 (now — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 42 korteriühistu). Owner XX disputed maintenance and heating charges with KÜ Tallinna mnt 42. The association relied on meeting resolutions imposing an additional charge for each individual room with altered heating equal to 50% of the apartment’s total heating cost and setting the area used for charging. The owner sought recalculation or a declaration that no debt existed. The first-instance court dismissed the claim, relying in part on unchallenged meeting resolutions. The appellate court reversed and remitted. After repeated amendments, it remained unclear which claims the first-instance court had decided. The court should have discussed the available legal protection and explained that compulsory recalculation as formulated had no independent substantive basis; a declaration of no debt was possible. Allocating common expenses otherwise than in proportion to ownership shares requires all owners’ consent. A meeting resolution without unanimity does not replace that agreement; failure to challenge it in time did not resolve this issue. Evidence and the existence of debt must be examined on rehearing. The appeal was allowed in part, with costs to be allocated by the first-instance court according to the final outcome.

Outcome of this decision

The judgment was reversed and the case remitted to clarify the claims and examine the debt; no specific recalculation was ordered.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Allow the appeal in part.
Not prepared yet

· Case 2-14-62722 · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Case 2-17-9837

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.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-9837/11Read actFirst instance

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 2-17-126066

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.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-126066/5Read actFirst instance

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 2-17-15963

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.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-15963/8Read actFirst instance

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.