Narva apartment associations Court decisions

Owner XX obtained access to the association’s 2023 documents. The court rejected refusal based on advance payment and an unproved risk of harm to others.

The court required the apartment association Narva linn, Soldina tn 10 to provide owner XX with documents for 2023. The association had not established grounds to refuse access or make it conditional on a 15-euro advance payment. The owner requested meeting minutes with attendance sheets, a list of incoming invoices, bank statements of receipts and payments, supplier invoices and board members’ expense reports. The association supplied only some minutes. The applicant went to court to check spending of shared funds. The association objected that it had previously allowed access, and the applicant had declined a new opportunity because of the fee. It relied on a procedure approved at a meeting, protection of others’ interests and the presence of an auditor. It also alleged bad faith by the applicant. The court found that the application after partial refusal was timely. Access to documents follows from association membership and is not replaced by an auditor. Each joint owner may request information independently. The association did not explain who would suffer what significant harm from access or prove bad faith. The advance fee was unjustified: its components and actual expenses were not established. The court distinguished electronic from paper documents. Existing electronic copies must be sent within 15 days after finality. Paper documents must be made available at the association’s registered location within the same period; at least two possible dates must be offered within five working days. The court did not require electronic copies of every paper document to be created. The receipts statement may conceal names, account numbers and payment descriptions identifying unrelated individuals. For payments made, the court accepted the owner’s interest in checking recipients and purposes of expenses. Litigation costs were imposed on the association, to be quantified separately.

Grant the application. Provide the 2023 minutes with attendance sheets, incoming invoice list, receipts and payments bank statements, supplier invoices and board expense reports. Send electronic documents within 15 days after finality. For paper documents, offer at least two dates within five working days and provide access at the association’s location within 15 days. Unrelated individuals’ data may be concealed in the receipts statement. The association bears costs, to be quantified separately.

XX sought information, document access and a declaration that meeting resolutions did not exist; the association relied on earlier access, lack of specificity and expiry of the filing period.

Applicant XX sought an order requiring Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu to provide information and access to documents about the building’s technical condition, planned works and expenditure. XX also sought a declaration that particular resolutions were not adopted at the meeting of 4 May 2022 and that a different plan was approved. XX argued that the association referred to expert materials but failed to supply them. The association said some documents were already accessible, others did not exist, the request was insufficiently specific and the court deadline had passed. Near the end, XX withdrew the declaration claim because proceedings had taken too long. On 18 February 2025, the court accepted that withdrawal and ended that part. It separately dismissed the information and document claim for missing the deadline under KrtS §45 as applicable to the 2022 request. Filing on 4 July 2022 was late whether the board’s reply was treated as refusal or no reply was assumed. The court therefore did not examine the request’s substantive merits. It explained that a fresh request could be made to the board, followed by the applicable court procedure. This did not deny owners any right to documents. XX was ordered to pay the association 1430.56* euros in costs, with late-payment interest from entry into force until payment. Legal costs were reduced by 244 euros for time spent producing documents during the case that neither XX sought as evidence nor the court required.

Accept withdrawal of the declaration claim and end that part. Dismiss the information claim because the filing deadline had passed. Award 1430.56* euros in costs against XX, with late-payment interest from entry into force until payment.

A member sought documents underlying tax payments; the association proposed waiting for annual reporting. The court required access and accepted applicant XX’s withdrawal of the separate full-information request.

The court required the apartment association Narva linn, A. Daumani tn 18 to provide owner XX documents underlying tax payments and terminated the separate full-information claim after withdrawal. Owner XX sought contracts or primary accounting documents on which state taxes had been paid in the third and fourth quarters of 2019. The request followed information showing increased numbers of people working in the association. The applicant wanted to understand payment grounds and working conditions. If no documents existed, full information about those taxes was initially sought. The association replied that Teatmik data were informational and payments included one-off board bonuses for which no separate contracts were made. It considered inspection of reporting before the ordinary meeting sufficient and denied any need to litigate. No agreement was reached. At the hearing the applicant withdrew the second, information request while maintaining the document request. The court found the documents related to association activities and costs paid by owners. In its view, information on employees’ duties, workload, hours and remuneration did not itself justify wholly denying a member access. It also explained that genuine inspection may take place at association premises with reasonable time and a means to record content; a general access right does not mean copies must be emailed. On 16 April 2021, the association was ordered to provide the specified contracts or primary documents for inspection within 15 days after entry into force. Proceedings on the second request ended through withdrawal. Half the applicant’s costs were allocated to the association: a 25 euro fee and 85 euros in legal assistance, totalling 110 euros, were awarded. The act confirms neither actual provision of documents nor payment of costs.

Require the association to provide XX contracts or primary accounting documents underlying tax payments in quarters III and IV of 2019 for inspection within 15 days after entry into force. Terminate the full-information request through withdrawal. Allocate 50% of the applicant’s costs to the association and award a 25 euro fee and 85 euros in legal assistance.

Claimant XX and the apartment association Pähklimäe 7/11 agreed on provision of documents and a loan payment of no more than 7,32 euros per month. The court approved the agreement and terminated the case.

Claimant XX asked the court to require the apartment association Pähklimäe 7/11 to provide loan documents and determine the monthly payment. At the hearing on 14 July 2015, the parties agreed on a list of documents and explanations. The association undertook to provide annex 1 to the loan agreement, the minutes of the meeting of 16 June 2008 with the participant list, a statement of payments to Danske Bank AS from 10 July 2008 to 25 June 2015, and explanations of the calculation of loan payments. The parties confirmed the claimant’s right to pay no more than 7,32 euros per month towards the loan. A change in how loan repayment was shown on monthly invoices was also noted. The court found the terms lawful and enforceable, approved the settlement and terminated the case. Each party bears its own costs. After termination, the same parties cannot bring the same claim again; an unperformed agreement can be enforced through a bailiff. Performance of the agreement is not confirmed.

Approve the agreement on providing loan documents and explanations and on the claimant’s right to pay no more than 7,32 euros per month. Terminate the case; leave each party to bear its own costs.

OÜ ROBURINK did not obtain access to the apartment association Linda 1’s documents. The court dismissed the claim, citing insufficient substantiation of interest and an imprecise document list.

The company ROBURINK sought meeting minutes and documents on the association’s repairs, contracts, invoices and expenditure over several years. It considered that the accounts did not explain the work actually done and charges made, and that the board obstructed scrutiny. The company relied on a member’s right to information and the right to inspect documents where a justified interest exists. The association objected that the company had sold its premises during the proceedings and ceased to be a member. It had no unpaid debt to the association. The association requested that the claim be left without examination or dismissed, arguing that the interest had not been substantiated and the document list was too general. The court found that ROBURINK was still a member when it filed the claim, but had ceased to be one through the sale by the time of the hearing. The court also assessed independent grounds for access to documents. It distinguished inspection from transfer of possession: the provision cited by the claimant did not give a right to receive the documents. From the explanation about copies, the court concluded that transfer of the documents was in fact sought. The court also found the company’s specific interest unproven: it had not shown which documents concerned its legal relationships or reported preparation of another claim for which they were needed. The general list did not allow the documents to be produced to be identified precisely or a possible judgment to be enforced. The claim was dismissed in full. ROBURINK was left to bear the association’s costs as well as its own. The judgment did not determine a specific costs amount.

Dismiss OÜ ROBURINK’s claim against the apartment association Linda 1 for access to documents. Order ROBURINK to bear the association’s costs and leave the company’s own costs to it.