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 2-16-13377Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 44 korteriühistu · 80146002

Contracts and servicesWorks contracts and designQuality and acceptance of worksRepairs and shared propertyRoof and atticDamage and insuranceLeaks and floodingDamage caused during repairsAmount of compensation

How it started · editorial summary

After the contractor’s failed repair, the association engaged another contractor and sought reimbursement.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-13377/118Read act

Separate act page

Defective roof works: recovery of rectification costs

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 44 korteriühistu · OÜ IMHOTEPKOMP · OÜ Alakki · 80146002 · 11482887 ·

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and customer — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 44 korteriühistu; Defendant and contractor — OÜ IMHOTEPKOMP

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought 1500 euros from a contractor for defective replacement of roof pipes. The court found defects in both the original and warranty works and awarded the full amount claimed.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 44 korteriühistu, additionally named Korteriühistu KANGELASTE 44, sought 1500 euros from OÜ IMHOTEPKOMP for rectifying defective work. The contractor replaced 17 roof pipes; the work was accepted and paid for. Leaks later appeared. The association notified the defects and the contractor began warranty repairs, but the association stopped them as technically unsuitable and engaged OÜ Alakki. The court assessed an audit, court-appointed expert evidence, testimony and photographs. It found unsuitable components and inadequate sealing that allowed moisture beneath the roof covering. Video of proper technique on another site did not prove it had been used on this building. Both the original work and attempted repair were found deficient. The contractor had been given an opportunity to remedy defects. Absence of the formal record required by the contract did not negate written notices and repairs begun. However, the court excluded the part repaired by another firm before the contractor was notified. Later rectification and audit costs supported compensation. The claim was granted within the 1500 euros requested. Procedural costs were imposed on the contractor, with their amount to be fixed separately.

Outcome of this decision

OÜ IMHOTEPKOMP must pay the association 1500 euros within the amount claimed. It bears its own and the association’s procedural costs, the latter to be fixed separately. Permission to appeal was granted.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Grant the claim in full. […] The court grants permission to appeal.
First instance
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-16-13377/130Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Kangelaste 44: contractor must reimburse correction of roof defects

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Korteriühistu KANGELASTE 44; Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 44 korteriühistu · Osaühing IMHOTEPKOMP · 80146002 · 11482887

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – Korteriühistu KANGELASTE 44; Defendant and appellant – Osaühing IMHOTEPKOMP

How it started · editorial summary

After the contractor’s failed repair, the association engaged another contractor and sought reimbursement.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The circuit court upheld the award of 1 500 euros against Osaühing IMHOTEPKOMP in favour of the apartment association KANGELASTE 44 for remedying roof defects, changing the reasons in part. Korteriühistu KANGELASTE 44 sought 1 500 euros in damages from Osaühing IMHOTEPKOMP after replacement of 17 roof ventilation pipes. The association alleged that the contractor damaged roofing around the pipes, causing leaks, and attempted repairs with bitumen mastic did not cure the defects. Another company was engaged for repairs and a building audit commissioned. The contractor argued that it was not given sufficient time or opportunity to remedy the work and that the expenses were excessive. The county court granted the claim. Tartu Ringkonnakohus upheld the 1 500-euro award, clarifying its legal reasoning and assessment of the amount. Expert materials and witness testimony supported defects in both the original work and attempted repair. Failed remedial work was a fundamental breach of contract. The association therefore did not have to give the contractor yet another additional deadline and could engage another contractor to remedy the defects. The circuit court found 1 143,84 euros for remedial work and 360 euros for the audit justified. The total established was 1 503,84 euros, but the association sought only 1 500 euros and that was awarded. Another company’s later, cheaper estimate did not prove the actual cost of the relevant repairs. Appeal costs were imposed on IMHOTEPKOMP; the county court will quantify them after the judgment becomes final. The judgment confirms the contractor’s compensation obligation, rather than an actual payment to the association.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss IMHOTEPKOMP’s appeal and uphold the association’s 1 500-euro award. Amend the reasoning in part. The contractor bears appeal costs, to be quantified separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Dismiss the appeal and leave the Viru Maakohus judgment of 11 March 2019 unchanged. Amend the county court judgment’s reasoning in part.
Appeal
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 2-15-16043Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kraavi tn 12 korteriühistu · 80310766

Damage and insuranceLeaks and floodingDamage caused during repairsCause and proof of damageRepairs and shared propertyRoof and attic

How it started · editorial summary

The appeal was dismissed: the claimant had not proved damage, and the court rejected the arguments about procedural breaches.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-16043/43Read act

Separate act page

Damages claimed for an alleged leak after roof repairs

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ KRAAVI 12 · 80310766

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: XX — claimant, owner; Association — defendant

How it started · editorial summary

The alleged damage after repairs was not found proven.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ KRAAVI 12 (now — Narva linn, Kraavi tn 12 korteriühistu). XX sought compensation from KÜ KRAAVI 12 for damage to interior finishes allegedly caused by roof repairs. The association disputed the leak and the loss claimed. The court disregarded Russian-language documents lacking the translation it had requested, could not establish where or when the photographs were taken, and considered testimony from witnesses who saw no flood damage. Its concluding reasons find the damage unproven.

Outcome of this decision

The operative part dismisses the claim in full. The concluding reasons find no proof of damage and therefore do not examine the other conditions of liability. The claimant bears the association’s costs, to be quantified separately.

A checked extract in this language is not yet available.

First instance
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-15-16043/63Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Kraavi 12: dismissal of damage claim following roof repairs upheld

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ Kraavi 12 · 80310766

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and appellant – XX; Defendant – KÜ Kraavi 12

How it started · editorial summary

The appeal was dismissed: the claimant had not proved damage, and the court rejected the arguments about procedural breaches.

The dispute and the court’s decision

XX sought 4500 euros in compensation and late-payment interest from the apartment association Kraavi 12, alleging that repairs to the roof, eaves and gutters in 2014 had damaged the apartment. The association denied flooding and damage. The county court dismissed the claim, and the circuit court left the judgment unchanged. The main reason for dismissal was failure to prove the damage itself in the circumstances alleged. Two witnesses examined denied the presence of flooding traces. Some Russian-language documents were disregarded: the court required an Estonian translation, set a deadline and explained the need for translation again, but the claimant did not provide one. The appeal court rejected the procedural objections. The claimant could have made a separate request to examine the necessary witness and objected to its refusal but did not do so. The claimant also did not ask for new facts and evidence to be admitted on appeal in the prescribed way. The court found the allocation of the burden of proof correct. As damage was unproved, the other conditions for the association’s liability were not examined separately.

Outcome of this decision

Leave the judgment of 15 July 2016 unchanged and dismiss the appeal. Damage in the alleged circumstances was not proved; other conditions for the association’s liability were not examined separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Dismiss the appeal.
Appeal
Case 2-14-57931Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 45a korteriühistu · 80250416

Damage and insuranceDamage caused during repairsCause and proof of damageAmount of compensationRepairs and shared propertyBasement, stairwell and shared rooms

How it started · editorial summary

Tartu Ringkonnakohus set aside the judgment in favour of Täisühing Mašuk and refused to award 877,42 euros in damages against the apartment association Puškini 45A.

· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-14-57931/24Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Appeal court dismissed claim over a sunken floor: link to association’s works unproven

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Täisühing Mašuk · Puškini 45A Korteriühistu · 10444548 · 80250416

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant Täisühing Mašuk — owner of non-residential premises.; Defendant and appellant Puškini 45A Korteriühistu — challenged the award.

How it started · editorial summary

Tartu Ringkonnakohus set aside the judgment in favour of Täisühing Mašuk and refused to award 877,42 euros in damages against the apartment association Puškini 45A.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The company Mašuk linked subsidence of a corridor floor in its non-residential premises to repairs to the strip around the building commissioned by the association. It alleged that a hole had been dug during the works and filled without proper compaction. The company sought 577,42 euros to restore the floor and 300 euros in expert examination costs. The association denied causing damage and pointed to a lack of evidence. On 23 January 2015, the first-instance court awarded 577,42 euros for repairs and 300 euros for the expert examination as costs. It regarded the floor as common property for whose upkeep the association was responsible regardless of the cause of subsidence. The association appealed, challenging that conclusion and the assessment of evidence. The appeal court found that the corridor formed part of the claimant’s premises and was used only by it. The finding that it was common property was not based on circumstances pleaded and discussed. The court saw no grounds to make the association bear the maintenance costs of this part of the premises. The court also found no proven link between the subsidence and the works commissioned by the association. The expert report pointed to defects in alteration of the entrance and corridor themselves: ground compaction, reinforcement, connection to the building and insulation. There was no evidence that the floor had subsided because of the repairs to the surrounding strip. As the act causing damage was unproven, the court did not assess unlawfulness and fault separately. The appeal was allowed: the earlier judgment was set aside and the claim dismissed in full. Costs at both instances were allocated to Mašuk; the association was awarded 460 euros, including 175 euros in state fees and 285 euros in representation costs.

Outcome of this decision

Set aside the Viru Maakohus judgment of 23 January 2015, allow the association’s appeal and dismiss Mašuk’s claim for 877,42 euros. Order Mašuk to pay the association 460 euros in costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Allow the appeal.
Appeal
Case 2-10-62881Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 11 korteriühistu · 80170839

Repairs and shared propertyRoof and atticContracts and servicesWorks contracts and designQuality and acceptance of worksPayment, advance payments and refundsDamage and insuranceDamage caused during repairsCause and proof of damageAmount of compensation

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought compensation for defective roof repairs; the contractor relied on having followed the agreed design. After an expert examination was ordered, the parties agreed on a smaller amount and instalments.

· Order approving a settlementViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-10-62881/47Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Puškini 11 and OÜ Lonstrong: settlement approved over damage following roof repairs

Order approving a settlement · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Puškini 11 · OÜ Lonstrong · 80170839 · 10632379

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant – KÜ Puškini 11; defendant – OÜ Lonstrong; parties’ legal and contractual representatives XX; expert XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought compensation for defective roof repairs; the contractor relied on having followed the agreed design. After an expert examination was ordered, the parties agreed on a smaller amount and instalments.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Puškini 11 brought a claim for 55 453,72 euros against OÜ Lonstrong following roof repairs. It relied on defects in the roofing and the damage they caused. The contractor initially disputed the claim, saying that the works followed the customer’s design documents, specifications and supervision instructions. During the proceedings, the parties raised the issue of an expert examination. The source records the contractor’s advance payment for it and receipt of an expert report. The order does not disclose the expert’s conclusions. The parties then agreed a settlement at the hearing instead of pursuing a decision on the merits. The defendant acknowledged the claim to the agreed extent and undertook to pay 31 955,82 euros. Of this, 19 955,82 euros was due by 15 November 2012, with the remaining 12 000 euros payable in twelve monthly instalments of 1 000 euros from December 2012 to November 2013. The association waived its remaining claims. The agreement resolved all disputes arising from the works contract of 9 April 2007. The court found no obstacle to approval, confirmed the agreed terms and terminated proceedings by its order of 12 October 2012. Each party bears its own costs; half the court fee, 2 236,91 euros, is to be returned to the association. The parties waived an appeal. This was an agreed resolution, rather than an independent judicial determination of the full amount of damage. The court did, however, examine the documentary evidence collected.

Outcome of this decision

Terminate proceedings and approve the settlement: OÜ Lonstrong is to pay the association 31 955,82 euros on the agreed schedule, and the association waives the remainder of its claims. All disputes under the contract of 09.04.2007 are resolved; each party bears its own costs. Reimburse the association 2 236,91 euros in court fees. The parties waived an appeal.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Terminate proceedings on the claim by KÜ Puškini 11 against OÜ Lonstrong for damages of 55 453.72 euros. […] 31 955 (thirty-one thousand nine hundred and fifty-five) euros and 82 cents. The claimant waives the remaining claims. […] 5. The parties waive the right to appeal the court ruling.
First instance