Narva apartment associations Court decisions

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.