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 2-25-19226Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu · 80069939

Damage and insuranceLeaks and floodingCause and proof of damageAmount of compensationInsurance payment and insurer’s claimWater and seweragePipes, risers and sewerage

How it started · editorial summary

The court established leakage from a common system and the claim transferred to the insurer.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-25-19226/5Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 32: reimbursement of insured water damage

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

AB “Lietuvos draudimas“ · AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ Eesti filiaal · Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu · 110051834 · 12831829 · 80069939

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant and insurer — AB “Lietuvos draudimas“ through AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ Eesti filiaal; person concerned — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The court established leakage from a common system and the claim transferred to the insurer.

The dispute and the court’s decision

AB “Lietuvos draudimas“, through its Estonian branch, sought reimbursement from Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu of 1964 euros paid for water damage and late-payment interest. The association submitted no position, but the court examined evidence of insurance, payment, causation and the amount of damage. The water came from a defective common system: piping and a towel dryer installed by the association. Location inside an individual apartment does not exclude common ownership. The court found a breach of the maintenance duty and a causal link to the damage; no evidence excusing the breach was provided. Insurance payment transferred the owner’s claim to the insurer. The estimate established restoration costs; the mentioned equipment costs were outside the claim. The award was 1964 euros in damages and 117.42 euros in late-payment interest for 23 October 2025 to 25 May 2026, totalling 2081.42 euros. From 26 May 2026 statutory late-payment interest runs on principal until payment. A further 575 euros in costs was awarded with statutory late-payment interest from finality of the order quantifying costs until performance. Payment by the association was not established.

Outcome of this decision

The association was ordered to pay 2081.42 euros in damages and accrued late-payment interest, further late-payment interest on principal, and 575 euros in costs with separate late-payment interest.

A checked extract in this language is not yet available.

First instance
Case 2-23-1406Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kraavi tn 14 korteriühistu · 80280195

Water and seweragePipes, risers and sewerageDamage and insuranceLeaks and floodingCause and proof of damageAmount of compensationInsurance payment and insurer’s claim

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer brought a transferred claim concerning a blockage in shared drainage; the association denied breach and pointed to a possible cause inside an apartment.

· Ruling on a damages demandViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-23-1406/7Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kraavi tn 14: liability for a blockage in shared drainage

Ruling on a damages demand · Viru Maakohus · First instance

AB “Lietuvos draudimas“ · AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ Eesti filiaal · Narva linn, Kraavi tn 14 korteriühistu · 110051834 · 12831829 · 80280195

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant, insurer — AB “Lietuvos draudimas“ through its Estonian branch AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ Eesti filiaal; interested person — Narva linn, Kraavi tn 14 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer brought a transferred claim concerning a blockage in shared drainage; the association denied breach and pointed to a possible cause inside an apartment.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Insurer AB “Lietuvos draudimas“, acting through its Estonian branch, sought reimbursement from Narva linn, Kraavi tn 14 korteriühistu of 1876 euros paid for apartment damage in flooding on 11 June 2022, plus interest and costs. It attributed the incident to a blockage in shared drainage and inadequate system maintenance. The association objected that pipes were sound and a foreign object or equipment inside an individual apartment, for which the owner was responsible, might have caused the blockage. It cited a later pipe survey and sought reduced compensation if necessary. The insurer replied that no particular object or owner action had been proved and several apartments were flooded. The court found a blockage in the shared sewer pipe itself. Inspection reports, photographs and explanations did not substantiate faulty individual equipment, and water entering through it did not mean the blockage originated there. A survey conducted much later showed pipe condition on another date, not proper inspection and cleaning before the incident. The association did not prove necessary measures or excusability of the breach. After payment, the owner’s claim passed to the applicant. The court found damage, causation and the association’s liability for maintaining common property proved. It refused to reduce compensation: victim contribution and exceptional unfairness of full compensation were not proved. On 3 July 2025, it awarded 1876 euros and 27,66 euros in interest as of 26 January 2023. Although its calculation produced higher interest, it stayed within the amount claimed. Under the operative part, further statutory interest runs from 27 January 2023 until payment. It also awarded 712 euros in costs, comprising 662 euros for legal assistance and a 50 euro fee, with interest on costs from entry into force.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the application: award 1876 euros in damages, 27,66 euros in accrued late-payment interest, further statutory late-payment interest from 27.01.2023, 712 euros in costs and late-payment interest on costs from entry into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Grant AB “Lietuvos draudimas“’s application for damages against Narva linn, Kraavi tn 14 korteriühistu.
First instance
Case 2-22-13958Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Uusküla tn 9 korteriühistu · 80180269

Water and seweragePipes, risers and sewerageDamage and insuranceLeaks and floodingCause and proof of damageAmount of compensationInsurance payment and insurer’s claim

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer sought reimbursement for a pipe rupture first from two owners XX, then alternatively from the Uusküla tn 9 association.

· Ruling granting the insurer’s demandViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-13958/16Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Uusküla tn 9 association ordered to reimburse 2 500 euros for a shared riser rupture

Ruling granting the insurer’s demand · Viru Maakohus · First instance

AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ · AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ Eesti filiaal · Narva, Uusküla tn 9 korteriühistu · 110051834 · 12831829 · 80180269

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant – AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ through its Estonian branch; two interested individuals XX – proceedings against them terminated; interested person – Narva, Uusküla tn 9 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer sought reimbursement for a pipe rupture first from two owners XX, then alternatively from the Uusküla tn 9 association.

The dispute and the court’s decision

AB „Lietuvos draudimas“, acting through its Estonian branch, initially sought 2 500 euros in insurance compensation paid for water damage on 26 June 2022 from two owners XX. The owners objected that the damaged pipe was shared property within the association’s responsibility. In August 2024, the insurer brought an alternative demand against Narva, Uusküla tn 9 korteriühistu. The association admitted the incident’s circumstances and agreed that the application should be granted: a shared hot-water riser had ruptured. The insurer then waived its demands against the individuals. The court accepted the waiver and ended proceedings concerning both owners; this is the procedural result of waiver, rather than a separate ruling that no possible owner liability existed. The court examined the demand against the association on its merits. It established that the pipe formed part of the shared system, the association’s duty to monitor its condition and keep it working, a link between breach and insured property damage, and payment of 2 500 euros. The rupture supported a presumption of breach of the maintenance duty; the association neither rebutted it nor proved the breach excusable. Following insurance payment, the corresponding claim passed to the insurer. The association was ordered to pay 2 500 euros and statutory late-payment interest from 27 August 2024. Of 594 euros claimed in costs, 512 euros was awarded: a 50-euro fee and 462 euros for assistance, excluding steps before the demand was made against the association. Interest on costs was also awarded after finality. The two owners’ costs were imposed on the insurer, but no specific reimbursement was set because they supplied no statement.

Outcome of this decision

Accept waiver of the application against two individuals XX and terminate proceedings concerning them. Grant the demand against the association: award 2 500 euros, statutory interest from 27.08.2024 until payment, and 512 euros in costs with interest after finality. Impose the individuals’ costs on the insurer, leaving the amount undetermined because reimbursement was not requested.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Grant the application by AB „Lietuvos draudimas“, through its Eesti filiaal, against Narva, Uusküla tn 9 korteriühistu for damages.
First instance
Case 2-20-16862Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 19 korteriühistu · 80228194

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

How it started · editorial summary

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

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

Separate act page

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

Judgment · Viru Maakohus Jõhvi kohtumaja · First instance

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

Entry into force has not been reverified

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

How it started · editorial summary

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

The dispute and the court’s decision

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

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss the association’s joint and several demand for 3 000 euros against Elamu Teenused Grupp OÜ and defendant XX. Allocate all costs to the association; determine their amount in a separate act after entry into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. The claimant shall bear all procedural costs.
First instance
Case 2-23-2145Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu · 80183173

Water and seweragePipes, risers and sewerageDamage and insuranceLeaks and floodingCause and proof of damageAmount of compensationInsurance payment and insurer’s claimApartment association bills, payments and debtsLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer obtained an award for reimbursement of compensation paid for apartment damage. The court linked the damage to the condition of a shared water riser under the association’s management.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-23-2145/3Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

A. Puškini tn 65: association ordered to reimburse insurer for a shared riser leak

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu · AB Lietuvos draudimas · 80183173 · 110051834

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — AB Lietuvos draudimas, insurer; interested person — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu; owner XX — recipient of the insurance payment; insurer’s representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer obtained an award for reimbursement of compensation paid for apartment damage. The court linked the damage to the condition of a shared water riser under the association’s management.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court awarded AB Lietuvos draudimas 596 euros in damages and interest against the apartment association Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65. It linked the apartment damage to a leak in the shared water riser whose condition the association was obliged to monitor. The insurer compensated owner XX for ceiling damage after the leak and brought the transferred claim against the association for the amount paid. Evidence included the policy, damage notice, photographs, inspection report, repair estimate and payment order. The association received court materials but did not respond or object within the deadline. The court found the source of the water in the shared riser. Ordinary upkeep and repair of that part of the building are performed through the association. It found the riser’s condition improper and causation proved: if properly maintained, water would not have entered the insured apartment. The association supplied no evidence rebutting those findings or justifying breach of duty. The decision rests on assessment of the materials, not merely the absence of a response. The ruling of 3 March 2023 awarded 596 euros in compensation, 38 euros in accrued interest and further statutory interest on 596 euros from 8 February 2023 until performance. The insurer also sought the costs of applying to court. The court reduced reimbursable representative time: the case did not require the three and a half hours claimed. It awarded 290 euros in costs, comprising a 50 euro fee and 240 euros in legal assistance, with statutory interest after entry into force. The award does not confirm that the association has already transferred those sums.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the insurer’s application. Award 596 euros in damages, 38 euros in accrued interest and statutory interest on 596 euros from 08.02.2023 until performance against the association. Allocate costs to it; award 290 euros and statutory interest on costs after entry into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Order Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu to pay AB “Lietuvos draudimas“ 596 euros in damages and 38 euros in late-payment interest that has fallen due.
First instance
Case 2-21-9037Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 16 korteriühistu · 80061872

Damage and insuranceCause and proof of damageParking and groundsUse of shared land

How it started · editorial summary

The car damage was accepted, but the court found no fault by the association in installing the warning post. The damages claim was dismissed.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-21-9037/19Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Võidu prospekt 16: court refused compensation after a collision with a warning post

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 16 korteriühistu · 80061872

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant XX – driver; defendant – Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 16 korteriühistu; parties’ representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

The car damage was accepted, but the court found no fault by the association in installing the warning post. The damages claim was dismissed.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court dismissed driver XX’s claim against the apartment association Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 16 for damage after striking a warning post in the courtyard. It accepted the car damage and its link to the collision but found that the association had exercised the required care. The claimant sought the 190-euro insurance excess, the part of repairs paid by the owner, plus accrued and continuing late-payment interest. XX alleged that the metal post installed beside a collapsed section of surfacing was hard to see and did not meet warning-sign requirements. The association objected that the post warned of a dangerous spot, had reflective strips and was visible in advance. The court considered the association’s liability as manager of the shared grounds. It separately examined property damage, causation, unlawfulness and fault. The fact that the post damaged the car did not complete that examination. From the photographs, the court considered the post sufficiently tall and visibly marked with reflective tape. A driver proceeding carefully through the courtyard could have seen it and stopped. In this case, the court considered that the rules cited by the claimant did not require a standard warning sign at that location. It found the association’s conduct consistent with expected care and did not establish the fault required for recovery. The court also refused to obtain courtyard video footage: the collision was undisputed, footage would not show visibility from inside the car and the association stated it no longer existed. The judgment of 4 March 2022 dismissed the entire claim and imposed costs on the claimant, with separate quantification. The court did not deny the car damage; refusal concerns the conditions for the association’s liability.

Outcome of this decision

Refuse to obtain the video recording and dismiss XX’s damages claim against the association in full. The claimant bears costs, to be quantified separately after the judgment becomes final.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Dismiss XX’s claim against Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 16 korteriühistu for damages in full.
First instance
Case 2-16-17050Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 19 korteriühistu · 80054978

Apartment association board and managementLiability of governing bodiesRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairsDamage and insuranceCause and proof of damage

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought the cost of cable relocation from a former board member as damages, citing missing approvals. On rehearing, the court refused the claim, considering necessity and benefit to the building separately from formal decision-making.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-17050/69Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

A board member’s liability for relocation of electrical cables

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 19 korteriühistu · 80054978

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 19 korteriühistu; Defendant, former board member — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought the cost of cable relocation from a former board member as damages, citing missing approvals. On rehearing, the court refused the claim, considering necessity and benefit to the building separately from formal decision-making.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 19 korteriühistu sought 7200 euros from former board member XX for moving electrical cables from the facade to the basement. It alleged that the works were not properly approved and served only certain owners. XX relied on unsafe old cables and the interests of the whole building. An earlier award had been reversed on appeal and the case remitted. The court examined witnesses, the cables’ condition, photographs and connection records. It found the need for works due to unsafe wiring proved and noted the benefit to the shared building’s safety. Separate connections to premises did not themselves exclude common interests. However, the court also said that time between ordering and performance allowed the matter to be put to a general meeting, and board discussion did not replace required documentation. The court considered the existence of damage and benefit from the works separately. It did not automatically equate all expenditure with proved loss merely because decision-making was inadequately documented. The claim was dismissed. Costs were imposed on the association, with 1995 euros awarded to XX for legal assistance under the operative part. Actual payment of awarded costs was not established.

Outcome of this decision

The association’s 7200 euros damages claim was dismissed. It bears costs and must pay XX 1995 euros under the operative part. This does not mean the court approved the formal handling of every decision.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Dismiss the claim. […] Order the claimant to bear the procedural costs.
First instance
Case 2-16-12373Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Joala tn 11 korteriühistu · 80189885

Damage and insuranceFireCause and proof of damageAmount of compensationRepairs and shared propertyRoof and attic

How it started · editorial summary

The court found the association liable for damage during firefighting but accepted only part of the loss claimed.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-12373/71Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Joala 11 Narva: partial compensation for damage caused during firefighting

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Korteriühistu Joala 11 Narva · If P&C Insurance AS · 80189885 · 10100168

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — owner XX; Defendant — Korteriühistu Joala 11 Narva; Third party on the defendant’s side — If P&C Insurance AS

How it started · editorial summary

The court found the association liable for damage during firefighting but accepted only part of the loss claimed.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court partly granted owner XX’s claim against the apartment association Joala 11 Narva and awarded 2 647,72 euros for apartment damage during firefighting. Owner XX sought compensation from Korteriühistu Joala 11 Narva for water damage during extinguishing an attic fire on 15 January 2014. The final claim was 18 186,32 euros. The association disputed liability and the amount of loss. Insurer If P&C Insurance AS participated on its side as a third party without an independent claim. After the appeal court set aside an earlier dismissal, the county court reconsidered the case. It found the association the proper defendant: maintaining common property and ensuring safety were its duties. From witness testimony and Rescue Board materials, it concluded that one attic entrance had been unlocked. In the court’s view, this allowed outsiders in and led to the fire during whose extinguishing the apartment was damaged. However, the claimant did not prove the entire amount sought. The assessments submitted were made more than a year after the fire and could not reliably separate firefighting damage from earlier defects. The court preferred inspection materials prepared soon after the event and the corresponding restoration estimate. The claim was partly granted, with 2 647,72 euros awarded against the association. Each participant bears its own court costs. The court applied the law in force when the damage arose. Use of the decision in a new dispute should take account of subsequent legislative changes and the specific circumstances.

Outcome of this decision

Partly grant the claim: award XX 2 647,72 euros against Korteriühistu Joala 11 Narva. Each participant bears its own court costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. The parties shall bear their own procedural costs in full.
First instance
Case 2-19-5478Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kraavi tn 12 korteriühistu · 80310766

Damage and insuranceDamage caused during repairsAmount of compensationCause and proof of damage

How it started · editorial summary

The new application repeated a dispute already pending; the pecuniary part was also covered by an earlier final judgment.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-19-5478/4Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kraavi 12: repeated apartment damage claim refused admission

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kraavi tn 12 korteriühistu · 80310766

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – XX; Named defendant – Narva linn, Kraavi tn 12 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The new application repeated a dispute already pending; the pecuniary part was also covered by an earlier final judgment.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court refused to accept XX’s repeated apartment damage claim against the apartment association Kraavi tn 12, citing a pending dispute and an earlier judgment on the pecuniary demand. Claimant XX sought 6 676 euros in pecuniary and 500 euros in non-pecuniary damages from Narva linn, Kraavi tn 12 korteriühistu. He alleged that the apartment was damaged during repairs and promised remedial work was not done. Viru Maakohus was deciding whether to accept this claim. The court found that the same claimant had already made a demand against the same association on the same circumstances in another case. Although acceptance there had previously been refused because defects were unremedied, that ruling was not yet final and its appeal period had not expired. The identical dispute therefore remained pending, preventing acceptance of a new claim. The court also referred to a final judgment in an earlier dispute about the same damage: pecuniary compensation had been refused upon a finding that damage had not been caused. That result prevents resubmission of the same pecuniary demand. For non-pecuniary harm, the court explained the special conditions for compensation where an item of particular personal importance is destroyed or lost. A demand to repair a damaged item does not itself replace proof of those conditions. The new claim was refused; all costs were left with the claimant, with none reimbursable. The ruling awards no monetary compensation and does not reopen the earlier pecuniary dispute on its merits.

Outcome of this decision

Refuse to accept the claim. The claimant bears costs; none are reimbursable.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. The claimant shall bear the litigation costs. There are no reimbursable litigation costs.
First instance
Case 2-18-18427Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kraavi tn 12 korteriühistu · 80310766

Damage and insuranceAmount of compensationCause and proof of damage

How it started · editorial summary

After partial reversal of the earlier refusal, the court allowed time to clarify the non-pecuniary demand, but the papers were not corrected.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-18-18427/19Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kraavi 12: non-pecuniary damage claim refused admission after defects remained unremedied

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kraavi tn 12 korteriühistu · 80310766

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – XX; Named defendant – Narva linn, Kraavi tn 12 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

After partial reversal of the earlier refusal, the court allowed time to clarify the non-pecuniary demand, but the papers were not corrected.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court again refused to accept XX’s non-pecuniary claim against the apartment association Kraavi tn 12: after an extension, the claimant did not clarify the amount and circumstances of the harm. Claimant XX sought pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages totalling 7 668 euros from Narva linn, Kraavi tn 12 korteriühistu. He linked the demand to damage to the apartment during repairs and disagreed with the earlier dismissal. The court initially refused to accept the new claim, citing a final judgment between the same parties. The circuit court set that refusal aside only as regards non-pecuniary damage and remitted acceptance of that part for reconsideration. The procedural ruling therefore did not reopen the pecuniary part. After remittal, Viru Maakohus required a clear statement of the specifically non-pecuniary amount, the association’s particular acts or omissions, the nature of the harm and the evidence. The total demand did not show which portion concerned non-pecuniary compensation. The court also explained the special conditions for such compensation where an item is destroyed or lost and warned of the consequences of not remedying defects. At the representative’s request, the deadline was extended to 1 April 2019, but no clarifications arrived. The court refused acceptance and ordered return of the application and attachments after the ruling becomes final. Costs were left with the claimant; none were reimbursable. This ruling addressed defects in the application, rather than establishing on the merits that no non-pecuniary harm existed.

Outcome of this decision

Refuse to accept the claim because defects were not remedied; return the application and attachments after the ruling becomes final. The claimant bears costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. Return the statement of claim and attachments to the claimant after this ruling becomes final.
First instance
Case 2-17-5112Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Rahu tn 28a korteriühistu · 80158560

Damage and insuranceLeaks and floodingCause and proof of damageInsurance payment and insurer’s claimWater and seweragePipes, risers and sewerageAccess for inspection and repairAmount of compensation

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer’s claim was granted; the judgment copy contains an operative part without circumstances or reasons.

Related prepared acts from this case are also shown.

· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohtu tsiviilkolleegium · Appeal · № 2-17-5112/13Read act

Separate act page

Rahu 28A: a leaking riser and the association’s response to denied access

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohtu tsiviilkolleegium · Appeal

AAS BTA Baltic Insurance Company Eesti filiaal · KORTERIÜHISTU RAHU 28A · 11223507 · 80158560

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and appellant — AAS BTA Baltic Insurance Company Eesti filiaal; defendant — KORTERIÜHISTU RAHU 28A

How it started · editorial summary

Denied access required examination of the association’s further steps to maintain the common riser.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KORTERIÜHISTU RAHU 28A (now — Narva linn, Rahu tn 28a korteriühistu). AAS BTA Baltic Insurance Company Eesti filiaal sought reimbursement of 1218 euros and 79 cents paid for water damage from KORTERIÜHISTU RAHU 28A. The parties did not dispute the leak from a valve on the common hot-water riser or the insurance payment. The association relied on owner XX having denied access during earlier repairs and disputed the amount of loss. The first-instance court dismissed the claim. The appellate court reversed and remitted the case to the preliminary stage. Having no right to enter without consent does not itself establish compliance with all duties to maintain common property. Further measures needed examination, including convening a meeting, taking decisions or other steps to address denied access. Failure to act may give rise to liability; the first-instance court also failed to justify excusing a possible breach. Important documents required Estonian translations even in simplified proceedings. The parties must have an opportunity to present evidence with the burden of proof properly allocated. If a breach is established, the compensation claim could have passed to the insurer following payment; association liability does not exclude liability of an owner who breached duties. The amount of loss had not been assessed and requires examination. The appeal was allowed in part; the first-instance court will allocate costs according to the new outcome.

Outcome of this decision

The dismissal was reversed and the case remitted to the preliminary stage; breach and the amount of loss remain to be established.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Allow the appeal in part.
Appeal
· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-5112/26Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Rahu 28a: association ordered to pay insurer 1 218,79 euros

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

AAS BTA Baltic Insurance Company Eesti filiaal · Narva linn, Rahu tn 28a korteriühistu · 11223507 · 80158560

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – AAS BTA Baltic Insurance Company Eesti filiaal; Defendant – Narva linn, Rahu tn 28a korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer’s claim was granted; the judgment copy contains an operative part without circumstances or reasons.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Viru Maakohus granted the claim by AAS BTA Baltic Insurance Company Eesti filiaal against Narva linn, Rahu tn 28a korteriühistu and awarded the insurer 1 218,79 euros in damages. It also awarded 425 euros in litigation costs against the association, which must bear its own costs as well. The judgment was made under the simplified procedure and gives the result without an account of the circumstances or reasons. The operative part describes recovery as a recourse claim: the insurer’s demand to be reimbursed for the damage amount. The text does not show what happened, what evidence was examined or what the association argued in response. The specific basis for its liability is therefore not set out here. The court did not grant separate leave to appeal but explained that an appeal was possible for substantial and clear errors in law or assessment of evidence. A participant first had to notify the court of an intention to appeal within ten days of service of the operative part. The court would then supplement the judgment with an account of the circumstances and reasons. The judgment does not establish actual payment of the awarded sums.

Outcome of this decision

Award the insurer 1 218,79 euros in damages and 425 euros in litigation costs against the association. The association bears its own costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Grant the claim.
First instance
Case 2-16-12373Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Korteriühistu XX Narva · If P&C Insurance AS

Damage and insuranceFireLeaks and floodingCause and proof of damageInsurance payment and insurer’s claimRepairs and shared propertyRoof and attic

How it started · editorial summary

The court required examination of fire-safety measures and the basis of the association’s liability.

· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-16-12373/34Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Fire in a shared attic: the compensation dispute was remitted

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Korteriühistu XX Narva · If P&C Insurance AS · · 10100168

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and appellant — owner XX; defendant — Korteriühistu XX Narva; third party — If P&C Insurance AS

How it started · editorial summary

The court required examination of fire-safety measures and the basis of the association’s liability.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Owner XX sought compensation from Korteriühistu XX Narva for water damage caused while extinguishing a fire in the shared attic. The association disputed liability and the amount of loss; insurer If P&C Insurance AS participated as a third party. The first-instance court dismissed the claim for lack of proof of a breach by the association. The appellate court reversed and remitted the case. Association duties may arise directly from statute, rather than solely from its articles or meeting resolutions. Maintaining the common attic and basic fire safety are association responsibilities; failure to act may give rise to liability. The cause of the fire remained unresolved. The association must prove what safety measures it took; the court pointed to the need for a Päästeamet assessment of fire safety. Liability insurance does not remove the injured owner’s right to claim against the association. The insurer’s willingness to reimburse part of the loss and payments to other owners required examination, but did not constitute a final award in this claim. On rehearing, liability must be established first and the amount of loss then examined. The first-instance court will allocate costs according to the new outcome.

Outcome of this decision

The dismissal was reversed and the case remitted; liability and the amount of compensation remain undecided.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Remit the civil case to Viru Maakohus for fresh examination.
Appeal