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 2-22-11087Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 18 korteriühistu · 80015336

Apartment association meetings and decisionsBudget, management plan and ratesArticles of association and amendmentsDocuments and informationReporting and review of expenditureRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairsBasement, stairwell and shared roomsParking and grounds

How it started · editorial summary

Two applicants XX sought to set aside two owners’ decision items concerning accounting review and a management plan.

· Final ruling on an application challenging general meeting decisionsViru Maakohus (Narva) · First instance · № 2-22-11087/67Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kivilinna tn 18: two decisions set aside after reconsideration

Final ruling on an application challenging general meeting decisions · Viru Maakohus (Narva) · First instance

Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 18 korteriühistu · 80015336

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: two applicants — XX; interested person — Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 18 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

Two applicants XX sought to set aside two owners’ decision items concerning accounting review and a management plan.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Two applicants XX challenged items 3 and 4 of Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 18 korteriühistu’s owners’ decision of 31 May 2022. Voting took place without a meeting. Item 3 concerned choosing an accounting organisation to check documents and authorising the board to choose a proposal; item 4 concerned the 2022 management plan. The applicants alleged that transferring control functions conflicted with the articles’ audit committee provision. For the plan, they cited missing mandatory information on common property condition, intended works, reserves and projected service consumption. They also objected to insufficiently justified parking and basement electrical system costs. The act presents these as applicants’ arguments. The first ruling of 9 January 2025 granted the application, but Tartu Ringkonnakohus set it aside and remitted the case. The grounds were breach of the right to be heard and partly insufficient reasoning; the appeal did not end the dispute by finally rejecting the applicants’ claims. On reconsideration the association admitted the claims in full. On 27 August 2025, the court therefore again granted the application and set aside specifically items 3 and 4. This result rests on admission, not a fresh detailed assessment of every objection to the management plan. Of the applicants’ 1150 euros in costs, the agreed 800 euros was allocated to the association. The applicants bear the other 350 euros. Appeal was available within 15 days after service.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the application and set aside items 3 and 4 of the decision of 31.05.2022. Allocate 800 euros in costs to the association, with the remaining 350 euros left to applicants.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Grant the application. […] 2. Set aside items 3 and 4 of Kivilinna tn 18 korteriühistu’s apartment owners’ decision of 31.05.2022.
First instance
Case 2-24-6934Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Soldina tn 10 korteriühistu · 80170667

Documents and informationInspection and copies of documentsReporting and review of expenditureContracts, loans and bank documents

How it started · editorial summary

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.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-24-6934/17Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Soldina tn 10: court ordered access to documents without a 15-euro advance fee

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Soldina tn 10 korteriühistu · 80170667

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant XX – owner; interested person – Narva linn, Soldina tn 10 korteriühistu; applicant’s representative XX; association representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

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 dispute and the court’s decision

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.

Outcome of this decision

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.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
5. Narva linn, Soldina tn 10 korteriühistu shall bear all litigation costs.
First instance
Case 2-22-9792Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu · 80183173

Documents and informationInspection and copies of documentsReporting and review of expenditureContracts, loans and bank documentsApartment association meetings and decisionsVoting and representationBudget, management plan and rates

How it started · editorial summary

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.

· Court order on an application in non-contentious proceedingsViru Maakohus Jõhvi kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-22-9792/27Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

A. Puškini tn 65: information, documents and meeting resolutions

Court order on an application in non-contentious proceedings · Viru Maakohus Jõhvi kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu · 80183173

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — XX; Person concerned — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

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.

The dispute and the court’s decision

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.

Outcome of this decision

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.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Dismiss XX’s application to obtain information from Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu and inspect documents.
First instance
Case 2-22-18555Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Suur tn 12 korteriühistu · 80218997

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeDocuments and informationInspection and copies of documentsReporting and review of expenditure

How it started · editorial summary

Applicant XX sought to set aside or establish nullity of the annual report approval decision; the court examined prior access to documents.

· Court rulingViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-22-18555/10Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Suur tn 12: annual report approval void because document inspection procedure was not communicated

Court ruling · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Suur tn 12 korteriühistu · 80218997

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant XX — person challenging the decision; interested person — Narva linn, Suur tn 12 korteriühistu (80218997); applicant’s representative XX; association’s representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

Applicant XX sought to set aside or establish nullity of the annual report approval decision; the court examined prior access to documents.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Applicant XX challenged item 2 of Narva linn, Suur tn 12 korteriühistu’s meeting decisions of 11 October 2022 approving the 2021 annual report. The applicant said members received an audit report and an income and expenditure report, while the annual report later filed with the register differed in content. Preparation for voting and completeness of information were also challenged. The association objected that alleged inaccuracies in accounting documents did not themselves justify setting aside the decision. It considered posting a meeting notice and allowing members to request the full report from the board sufficient. It cited noticeboards’ limited size to explain the amount of information displayed. The court focused on inspection arrangements. The notice gave date, time, place and agenda but not where and how to inspect the documents for approval. The materials supplied beforehand did not contain all the essential data, including expenses for each apartment ownership. The court held that an opportunity to approach the board independently does not replace the mandatory communication of inspection arrangements. This prevented applicant XX from voting on the annual report on an informed basis. The ruling of 19 August 2024 found only challenged item 2 without legal effect from adoption, or void, because of a material convening breach. The court did not consider other meeting decisions and found other objections to reporting figures unnecessary to resolve this question. Costs were allocated to the association and a 50 euro fee awarded to applicant XX. The outcome therefore concerns the report approval procedure and does not confirm all allegations of inaccurate accounting data.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the application and declare item 2 of the association’s meeting decision of 11.10.2022 approving the 2021 report void. Allocate all costs to the association and award applicant XX a 50 euro fee.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Declare item 2 of Narva linn, Suur tn 12 korteriühistu’s general meeting decision of 11 October 2022 void.
First instance
Case 2-21-10232Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Madise tn 1, Madise tn 3, Malmi tn 3, Malmi tn 5 korteriühistu · 80152178

Apartment association meetings and decisionsVoting and representationBudget, management plan and ratesDocuments and informationReporting and review of expenditure

How it started · editorial summary

XX challenged written resolutions on the association’s report and management plan. The first-instance dismissal was ultimately restored by Riigikohus, while costs were allocated differently across the instances.

· Court orderViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-21-10232/44Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Written voting on an association’s report and management plan

Court order · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Madise tn 1, Madise tn 3, Malmi tn 3, Malmi tn 5 korteriühistu · 80152178

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — XX; Person concerned — Narva linn, Madise tn 1, Madise tn 3, Malmi tn 3, Malmi tn 5 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

XX challenged written resolutions on the association’s report and management plan. The first-instance dismissal was ultimately restored by Riigikohus, while costs were allocated differently across the instances.

The dispute and the court’s decision

XX sought to have resolutions of Narva linn, Madise tn 1, Madise tn 3, Malmi tn 3, Malmi tn 5 korteriühistu, recorded on 28.04.2021, declared void or invalidated. They approved the 2020 report and 2021 management and works plan by written voting without a meeting. XX alleged missing board signatures on the report, deficiencies in the plan and failure to meet a unanimity requirement under the articles. The first-instance court found that the documents had been circulated in advance and XX could participate. It treated missing signatures as a formal defect that had not materially misrepresented the association’s finances in this case. It considered the plan sufficiently informative. It rejected an interpretation requiring every member to participate and found a quorum. The court also considered later resolutions with the same content. It dismissed the application on its merits rather than leaving it unexamined, and imposed costs on XX. On 20 December 2024, Tartu Ringkonnakohus reversed the dismissal and declared the challenged points void. On 14 May 2025, however, Riigikohus restored the first-instance dismissal of the application. First-instance costs were left with the association, while appeal and Supreme Court costs were imposed on XX. The original allocation of all costs to XX was therefore not restored.

Outcome of this decision

The first-instance dismissal was reversed by Tartu Ringkonnakohus on 20 December 2024 and restored by Riigikohus on 14 May 2025. First-instance costs were allocated to the association, and appeal and Supreme Court costs to XX. The original allocation of all costs was not restored.

A checked extract in this language is not yet available.

First instance
Case 2-21-6288Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12 korteriühistu · 80175498

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeVoting and representationBudget, management plan and ratesDocuments and informationInspection and copies of documentsReporting and review of expenditureApartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the boardRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairsParking and groundsConstruction of parking facilities

How it started · editorial summary

Nine applicants XX challenged the apartment association Kangelaste prospekt 12 written decisions for 2021; the association denied breaches.

· Ruling leaving an application unexaminedViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-21-6288/16Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Dispute over Kangelaste prospekt 12 decisions left unexamined after renewed confirmation

Ruling leaving an application unexamined · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12 korteriühistu · 80175498

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicants XX – nine individuals; interested person – Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

Nine applicants XX challenged the apartment association Kangelaste prospekt 12 written decisions for 2021; the association denied breaches.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Nine applicants XX sought a declaration that the Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12 korteriühistu decisions of 22 February 2021 were void, meaning without legal effect from adoption, or alternatively their invalidation. The written vote concerned accounts, management and repair plans, video surveillance, parking and board elections. The applicants relied on one participant not receiving drafts, deficiencies in financial documents and breaches of candidate nomination procedure. The association objected that drafts were sent, papers were made available for inspection, accounts had been checked and alternative candidates received insufficient votes. The court did not decide these disagreements on their merits. Register data showed that the general meeting of 15 March 2022 had confirmed the 2021 decisions. The court found no information that the new decision had been challenged. It asked the applicants to explain their continuing personal legal interest in review of the former vote and substantiate invalidation. No response arrived in time. The court considered that the old decisions’ legal effects could no longer be removed by this application: the same provisions applied under the new, unchallenged decision. The applicants explained no other independent interest. The application was therefore left unexamined. This is not a judicial finding that the original procedure was lawful or a rejection of nullity arguments on their merits. Each participant bears its own costs, which the court did not quantify. The court clarified the challenged decisions’ date from the minutes as 22 February, although applicants initially gave 14 February 2021.

Outcome of this decision

Leave the application to declare the decisions of 22.02.2021 void or invalidate them unexamined. Leave costs with the participants who incurred them, without quantification.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. The participants shall bear their own litigation costs. Given this allocation, the court will not quantify them.
First instance
Case 2-23-11384Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Vestervalli tn 6 korteriühistu · 80170874

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeArticles of association and amendmentsVoting and representationAgenda and minutesDocuments and informationInspection and copies of documentsReporting and review of expenditure

How it started · editorial summary

Applicant XX sought review of the apartment association Vestervalli tn 6 decisions of 12.06.2023 on the report and articles; the association denied the grounds.

· Ruling on an application challenging general meeting decisionsViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-23-11384/19Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Vestervalli tn 6: report approval declared void because provision of materials was not proved

Ruling on an application challenging general meeting decisions · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Vestervalli tn 6 korteriühistu · 80170874

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant XX; interested person – Narva linn, Vestervalli tn 6 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

Applicant XX sought review of the apartment association Vestervalli tn 6 decisions of 12.06.2023 on the report and articles; the association denied the grounds.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Applicant XX challenged the Narva linn, Vestervalli tn 6 korteriühistu general meeting decisions of 12 June 2023 on the board’s 2022 report and a new version of the articles. XX alleged that annual accounts had not been received beforehand and that votes and participation by a person interested in changing payments were handled incorrectly in the articles vote. The association objected that only a board activity report was discussed, materials were sent and adoption of new articles was postponed altogether. The court first examined grounds for nullity, meaning no legal effect from adoption. It found that the association submitted an annual report to the register after the meeting and rejected the assertion that only an informal activity report was considered. The applicant had given the association an email address, so preparation materials had to be sent there. The original email supplied contained the agenda, but the court could not establish attachments. Their appearance in an email forwarded to the representative did not prove timely delivery to the applicant. Failure to provide the materials was a substantial defect in meeting preparation that prevented informed voting. The first decision, approving the board’s 2022 report, was declared void. For the articles, the result differed: the minutes showed postponement to the next meeting and no adoption of a new version. The court rejected that part because there was no decision to declare void or invalidate. It therefore did not examine vote counting or voting restrictions. As the application succeeded only partly, each participant retained its own costs.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the application in part: declare decision No. 1 approving the board’s 2022 report void. Dismiss the remainder. Each participant bears its own costs, which are not to be quantified.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Grant the applicant’s application in part and declare decision number one of the Narva linn, Vestervalli tn 6 korteriühistu general meeting of 12.06.2023 — to approve the board’s 2022 report — void. Dismiss the application in all other respects.
First instance
Case 2-20-10704Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 18 korteriühistu · 80015336

Documents and informationInspection and copies of documentsReporting and review of expenditureApartment association meetings and decisionsBudget, management plan and ratesVoting and representation

How it started · editorial summary

The association appealed against nullity of three written decision items due to lack of access to full financial documents.

· RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-20-10704/36Read actAppeal

Separate act page

A. Daumani tn 18: short report and plan did not replace access to full documents

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, A. Daumani tn 18 korteriühistu · 80015336

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicants — two owners XX; Interested person and appellant — apartment association

How it started · editorial summary

The association appealed against nullity of three written decision items due to lack of access to full financial documents.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Tartu Ringkonnakohus dismissed Narva linn, A. Daumani tn 18 korteriühistu’s appeal and upheld nullity of items 1, 5 and 13 of the decisions of 30 May 2020 concerning 2019 reporting, electricity rates and the 2020 management plan. Nullity means no legal effect from the outset. Rejection of the challenge to item 9 on replacing water risers was not appealed and, the court stated, had already become final. The decisions were adopted by written vote without a meeting. Two owners XX alleged lack of access to necessary documents. The association replied that a board report and work plan were placed in mailboxes, decisions were adopted by majority, and the audit report could be obtained. The circuit court accepted that the applicants could indeed inspect the audit report. But that did not cure the main defect: access to a legally compliant annual report and management plan was not ensured, nor were the place and procedure for inspection communicated. The brief documents distributed did not contain all the required information. In particular, the plan lacked projected utility volumes and costs; the board report did not replace a complete annual report. This prevented informed voting, including on electricity rates. The court explained that full documents need not be handed to everyone on paper: participants must be told how to inspect them. This also applies to written voting. The association’s argument that the applicants lacked financial knowledge did not limit their document rights. The first-instance costs allocation was retained: 80% to the association and 20% jointly and severally to applicants. Appeal costs were allocated to the association, with the amount set later.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss the association’s appeal and uphold the first-instance ruling. Allocate appeal costs to the association.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Dismiss Narva linna, A. Daumani tn 18 korteriühistu’s appeal against the ruling and uphold the Viru Maakohus ruling of 30 April 2021.
Appeal
Case 2-20-5373Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12 korteriühistu · 80175498

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeVoting and representationDocuments and informationInspection and copies of documentsReporting and review of expenditure

How it started · editorial summary

The association appealed the declaration that meeting decisions were void. The circuit court gave decisive weight to applicant XX’s representative having read the materials beforehand and attended the meeting.

· RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-20-5373/28Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Kangelaste prospekt 12: circuit court reversed declaration that meeting decisions were void

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12 korteriühistu · 80175498

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant XX – challenged meeting decisions; interested person and appellant against the ruling – Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12 korteriühistu; applicant’s and association’s representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association appealed the declaration that meeting decisions were void. The circuit court gave decisive weight to applicant XX’s representative having read the materials beforehand and attended the meeting.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The circuit court reversed the declaration that meeting decisions were void and dismissed XX’s application; each party was left to bear its own costs. Applicant XX sought a declaration that decisions of the apartment association Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12 meeting of 12 March 2020 were void, meaning without legal effect from adoption. XX relied on failure to send the invitation and materials to an email address known to the association, absence of detailed access arrangements and overly short time for viewing documents. The association objected that the representative initially supplied no power of attorney but later received the documents and participated in the meeting. Viru Maakohus granted the application and imposed costs on the association. The association appealed. The circuit court accepted that it should have sent the invitation and papers to the known address on its own initiative. Nullity, however, required a substantial defect in meeting preparation that prevented the participant from learning of the meeting and preparing to vote. Here the applicant knew the meeting’s time and place. The representative received the necessary papers beforehand through another owner represented, read them, participated and stated objections. The court therefore did not regard failure to send the applicant a separate letter as substantially limiting those opportunities. Refusal to show documents to a person without authority also did not establish the alleged ground of nullity. Failure to explain the need for a power of attorney and allowing one hour for inspection did not change that finding. On 2 July 2021, the circuit court allowed the association’s appeal, reversed the nullity declaration and dismissed the application. Each participant bears its own costs at both levels: the association could have avoided the dispute by sending materials properly. The court thus found a breach of the duty to send documents but not the substantial impact needed for the outcome sought.

Outcome of this decision

Set aside the Viru Maakohus ruling of 11.05.2021 insofar as it granted the application, declared the meeting decisions of 12.03.2020 void and addressed association costs. Issue a new ruling dismissing the application. Allow the appeal; each participant bears its own first-instance and circuit court costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Allow the appeal against the ruling.
Appeal
Case 2-20-2889Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 18 korteriühistu · 80015336

Documents and informationInspection and copies of documentsReporting and review of expenditureContracts, loans and bank documents

How it started · editorial summary

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.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-20-2889/17Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

A. Daumani tn 18: association required to show documents underlying tax payments

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, A. Daumani tn 18 korteriühistu · 80015336

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant XX — owner seeking document access; interested person — Narva linn, A. Daumani tn 18 korteriühistu; applicant’s representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

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 dispute and the court’s decision

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.

Outcome of this decision

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.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Grant XX’s application.
First instance
Case 2-20-11532Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 30a korteriühistu · 80170762

Documents and informationInspection and copies of documentsReporting and review of expenditure

How it started · editorial summary

The demand for association documents ended with an agreement on their delivery.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-20-11532/17Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kreenholmi 30a: agreement to hand over association documents

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 30a korteriühistu · 80170762

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant – XX; Interested person – Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 30a korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The demand for association documents ended with an agreement on their delivery.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Applicant XX went to court to obtain access to documents of Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 30a korteriühistu. During the hearing, the participants agreed which documents the association would give the applicant. Viru Maakohus approved the settlement and terminated proceedings. The agreement lists the general meeting minutes of 18 June 2020 with attachments, participant list and powers of attorney; the 2019 financial and management audit report; that year’s management report; notice convening the June meeting; and the draft 2020 management and financial plan approved at that meeting. Delivery of these was provided for in the courtroom at the hearing on 19 November 2020. The association undertook to email the general meeting minutes of 20 August 2020 with attachments, participant lists and powers of attorney by 25 November, and the applicant to acknowledge receipt by return email. The association also undertook to reimburse half the applicant’s court fee, 25 euros. Each participant bears other costs not mentioned in the agreement. The court left the fee refund from the state budget to a separate ruling after finality. It considered the agreement permissible and enforceable, without separately finding a violation of the right to documents on the merits. The ruling records agreed delivery arrangements; it does not confirm receipt of every document.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the list of documents and handover arrangements and terminate proceedings. The association must reimburse the applicant 25 euros; refund of the court fee from the state budget is decided separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Terminate proceedings in civil case No. 2-20-11532.
First instance
Case 2-19-9699Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Rakvere tn 20, Rakvere tn 20a, Rakvere tn 20b, Rakvere tn 20c korteriühistu · 80180335

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeBudget, management plan and ratesDocuments and informationReporting and review of expenditureInspection and copies of documents

How it started · editorial summary

The court distinguished breach of the duty to send documents from a material breach making meeting decisions void.

Related prepared acts from this case are also shown.

· Court orderViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-19-9699/34Read act

Separate act page

Meeting documents by email: a breach without nullity of the resolutions

Court order · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Rakvere tn 20, Rakvere tn 20a, Rakvere tn 20b, Rakvere tn 20c korteriühistu · 80180335

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — XX; Person concerned — Narva linn, Rakvere tn 20, Rakvere tn 20a, Rakvere tn 20b, Rakvere tn 20c korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

XX challenged resolutions because documents were not emailed. The court recognised the duty to send them but found no material obstruction to preparation or participation and refused the application.

The dispute and the court’s decision

XX sought a declaration that four resolutions of Narva linn, Rakvere tn 20, Rakvere tn 20a, Rakvere tn 20b, Rakvere tn 20c korteriühistu made on 29.04.2019 were void: those on the report, repairs, management plan and reserve capital. The complaint was that notice and documents had not been sent to the email address notified to the association. The association relied on noticeboards and its lack of a computer. The court found that XX had previously supplied an address. Notification before the new law entered into force did not remove the duty to use known contact details. The absence of a computer was not an excuse. It separately examined whether the breach materially affected participation in decision-making. In this case, documents were on noticeboards, XX knew about the meeting, could inspect drafts and acknowledged attending. Objection to taking the decisions at the meeting was not proved. The court therefore found no ground of nullity and refused the application. It did not examine the substantive legality of each resolution as a separate invalidation claim. Costs were imposed on XX, with their amount to be determined separately.

Outcome of this decision

The request to declare the 29.04.2019 resolutions void was refused. The court found a breach of the electronic-delivery duty but did not consider it sufficiently material on these facts to cause nullity. XX bears costs, with their amount determined separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Order the applicant to bear the procedural costs.
First instance
· RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-19-9699/41Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Rakvere 20–20c: failure to email documents did not make meeting decisions void

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, Rakvere tn 20, Rakvere tn 20a, Rakvere tn 20b, Rakvere tn 20c korteriühistu · 80180335

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant and appellant — XX; Respondent — Narva linn, Rakvere tn 20, Rakvere tn 20a, Rakvere tn 20b, Rakvere tn 20c korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The court distinguished breach of the duty to send documents from a material breach making meeting decisions void.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The circuit court dismissed XX’s appeal and upheld refusal to declare the meeting decisions void, meaning without effect from adoption. Applicant XX sought nullity of the general meeting decisions of 29 April 2019 of Narva linn, Rakvere tn 20, Rakvere tn 20a, Rakvere tn 20b, Rakvere tn 20c korteriühistu. The dispute concerned the annual report, repairs, management plan and reserve capital. The applicant alleged defective convening: notice and materials had not been sent to the email address previously supplied. The association replied that documents were available on noticeboards. The county court rejected the application. Tartu Ringkonnakohus examined the appeal on its merits and upheld that result. It confirmed that the association had to send notice and materials to the supplied address and had breached that duty. However, nullity follows from a material breach of convening rules, not every departure. Here the applicant knew of the meeting, the notice stated where and how to inspect materials, and the same documents had been on noticeboards in advance. The court found a real opportunity to examine and understand them without additional expense. Non-receipt by email therefore did not materially restrict rights. The circuit court separately clarified that attendance and voting alone do not cure a material breach or automatically approve the decisions. It dismissed the appeal and allocated appeal costs to the applicant; the county court will determine the amount after the final act enters into force.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss XX’s appeal and uphold the county court ruling of 20 March 2020. The applicant bears appeal costs, with the amount set separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Uphold the Viru Maakohus ruling of 20 March 2020.
Appeal