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 2-25-19185Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Madise tn 6 korteriühistu · 80551777

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayBills and justification of chargesPayment accounting and set-offHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesWater and sewerageCalculation of water charges

How it started · editorial summary

The owner’s silence did not replace review of invoice grounds, payments and late-payment interest.

· Court orderViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-25-19185/6Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Madise tn 6: review of charges and partial recovery

Court order · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Madise tn 6 korteriühistu · 80551777

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, Madise tn 6 korteriühistu; person concerned — owner XX

How it started · editorial summary

The owner’s silence did not replace review of invoice grounds, payments and late-payment interest.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Madise tn 6 korteriühistu claimed management charges and late-payment interest from owner XX. The owner received the documents but did not respond. In non-contentious proceedings, the court independently examined the basis and amount: issuing invoices alone is insufficient. It established meeting resolutions setting rates, a valid management plan and supplier costs. Heating was allocated by floor area, water and gas by readings and supplier prices. A late increase for a new period was left unexamined because it followed the deadline and would require a fresh opportunity to respond. A separate application for the new period remains possible. The court checked allocation of two payments: without selection of a particular obligation, the statutory sequence applied, first costs and late-payment interest, then principal. Late-payment interest was checked using the exact statutory annual rate rather than the association’s rounded daily rates. Principal recovery was limited to the amount claimed although the calculated balance was higher. The original late-payment interest claim was partly refused; the remaining accrued late-payment interest and further statutory late-payment interest on unpaid principal from 22 August 2026 until payment were awarded. Costs were reduced from the 800 euros sought to 560 euros: a 50-euro fee and 510 euros for legal assistance. The late increase and some representative time were not reimbursed. The order does not establish performance of the award.

Outcome of this decision

The application was allowed in part; debt and late-payment interest were awarded and costs reduced. The late increase for a new period was left unexamined.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Allow in part the application of Narva linn, Madise tn 6 korteriühistu dated 12.11.2025.
First instance
Case 2-22-9419Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 3 korteriühistu · 80162521

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeArticles of association and amendmentsVoting and representationHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating charges

How it started · editorial summary

After the nullity application succeeded, Rosehill challenged being left to bear its own costs. The main outcome concerning the articles was not at issue in this appeal.

Related prepared acts from this case are also shown.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-9419/25Read act

Separate act page

An association’s new articles: notice of the meeting by email

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Osaühing Rosehill · Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 3 korteriühistu · 10972543 · 80162521

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Osaühing Rosehill; Person concerned — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 3 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

Osaühing Rosehill challenged approval of the new articles because it had not received the notice or draft. The appeal court later changed only the allocation of procedural costs.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Osaühing Rosehill, which owned premises in the building, sought a declaration that the 29.04.2022 resolution approving new articles of Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 3 korteriühistu was void. It challenged notice of the meeting, allocation of costs and voting arrangements. The association said it had sent the notice and draft in advance to an email address known to it. The court found that the email had been sent to an account that was already closed. Sending the message did not prove its delivery. The company had received neither the notice nor the draft and could not prepare for the meeting. The court regarded this as a material defect in convening the meeting. The absence of a signature on the notice was not itself considered a material defect. The court found the meeting quorate but declared its resolution void because of the notice defect. It therefore did not examine the alternative objections to the substance of the articles. The court refused to stay proceedings pending the other dispute about the articles. Initially, each participant was left to bear its own costs. On 31 October 2025, however, Tartu Ringkonnakohus reversed only the costs part: the association must bear the costs of both the first-instance and appeal proceedings, with the amount to be determined separately by Viru Maakohus. The finding that the meeting resolution was void was not challenged or re-examined on appeal.

Outcome of this decision

The first-instance court declared the 29 April 2022 meeting resolution void and refused a stay. On 31 October 2025, Tartu Ringkonnakohus changed only the costs allocation: the association must bear the costs of both instances, with the amount to be determined separately. The finding of nullity was not re-examined.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Declare the resolution adopted by the apartment owners’ general meeting of Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 3 korteriühistu on 29 April 2022 void.
First instance
· Appeal court ruling on court costsTartu Ringkonnakohtu tsiviilkolleegium · Appeal · № 2-22-9419/34Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Osaühing Rosehill: costs of challenge to apartment association Kangelaste prospekt 3’s decision allocated to association

Appeal court ruling on court costs · Tartu Ringkonnakohtu tsiviilkolleegium · Appeal

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 3 korteriühistu · Osaühing Rosehill · 80162521 · 10972543

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant and appellant against the ruling — Osaühing Rosehill; interested person — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 3 korteriühistu; applicant’s representative XX; association’s representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

After the nullity application succeeded, Rosehill challenged being left to bear its own costs. The main outcome concerning the articles was not at issue in this appeal.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Osaühing Rosehill challenged Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 3 korteriühistu’s meeting decision of 29 April 2022 adopting new articles. It cited inadequate notice, documents sent to an old non-working email address and the articles’ content. The association said it sent necessary materials to the known address and complied with convening rules. On 9 May 2025, Viru Maakohus declared the decision void, meaning without legal effect from adoption, but left each participant to bear its own costs. It considered that the company contributed to non-notification by not supplying current details. Rosehill appealed only costs, arguing that the association knew the addresses used from ongoing correspondence. The association sought to retain the original allocation. The circuit court confined review to costs. Nullity had not been appealed and, according to this act, that part was already final. The court noted a substantive dispute over the meeting decision’s lawfulness. It is normally fair to allocate costs to the losing participant. The company had properly sought judicial protection because convening rules were breached and incurred costs that would not otherwise have arisen. The ruling of 31 October 2025 allowed the appeal, allocating first-instance and appeal costs to the association, with the amount to be set later by Viru Maakohus. It also explained that the fee for this appeal was 50 euros rather than the 70 paid; a request was needed for a 20 euro refund. This explanation is not a refund already made.

Outcome of this decision

Set aside the costs allocation in the ruling of 09.05.2025 and allocate costs to the association. Allow Rosehill’s appeal against the ruling and allocate its costs to the association too. Viru Maakohus will determine the amount after the final act enters into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Allow Osaühing Rosehill’s appeal against the ruling. 3. Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 3 korteriühistu shall bear the procedural costs of the appeal against the ruling.
Appeal
Case 2-24-15880Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 17 korteriühistu · 80170377

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesObligations of multiple ownersHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairs

How it started · editorial summary

The court checked the basis of charges and limited the recovery period.

· Court orderViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-24-15880/39Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Proof of charges and joint and several recovery

Court order · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 17 korteriühistu · 80170377

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 17 korteriühistu; three persons concerned XX — jointly and severally liable owners; association representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

The court checked the basis of charges and limited the recovery period.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 17 korteriühistu sought joint and several payment from three persons XX for services, repair-fund contributions, gas-equipment maintenance and heating. This is one common sum, not separate full recovery from each. The court checked the claim despite incomplete responses. Meeting decisions, a management plan, contracts and supplier invoices supported the charges; bills sent to the owner alone are insufficient. Payments were credited. Debt for 1 June 2023–30 April 2025 was proved; debt from May 2025 was not awarded. The application was allowed in part. Of 850 euros sought for legal costs, 300 euros were accepted for proved representative activities; with a 50-euro fee, 350 euros were awarded jointly and severally. Duplicate documents were removed from the file.

Outcome of this decision

Proven debt and 350 euros in costs awarded jointly and severally; later debt not awarded.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Allow the application of Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 17 korteriühistu in part.
First instance
Case 2-23-13839Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kraavi tn 7 korteriühistu · 80265592

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesApartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the board

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought unpaid management and utility charges. XX challenged the documents, heating allocation and liability after the property was sold.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-23-13839/25Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Debt to an apartment association: heating calculations and board authority

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kraavi tn 7 korteriühistu · 80265592

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, Kraavi tn 7 korteriühistu; Person concerned and counter-applicant — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought unpaid management and utility charges. XX challenged the documents, heating allocation and liability after the property was sold.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Kraavi tn 7 korteriühistu sought unpaid building management and utility charges. XX disputed the reliability of invoices and meeting minutes, the board’s authority and allocation of heating costs by floor area. XX also argued that liability ended with the auction sale of the property. The court examined the debt calculation, invoices, management plans, minutes and supplier contracts. It found allegations of forged documents and missing required signatures unproved, checked powers of attorney and found no violation in extending a board member’s term. It found that costs in this case were calculated according to the ownership share. XX had not established grounds for another allocation or refusal to pay on good-faith grounds. The absence of an energy audit did not by itself remove liability. The court linked transfer of the owner’s obligations to registration of title, rather than receipt of the auction instrument. The association’s application was granted. A request for repayment of excess heating charges submitted after the deadline for final submissions was not admitted as a counter-application in these proceedings. It was sent for registration as a separate application; its merits were not decided by this order.

Outcome of this decision

The debt was awarded to the association. XX must bear procedural costs, whose amount will be determined separately after the order becomes final. The heating repayment claim was sent for registration as a separate application.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Grant the application of Narva linn, Kraavi tn 7 korteriühistu. […] Order XX to bear the procedural costs.
First instance
Case 2-22-14923Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Vestervalli tn 6 korteriühistu · 80170874

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesChanges to or disconnection from heatingApartment association meetings and decisionsArticles of association and amendmentsBudget, management plan and rates

How it started · editorial summary

The court granted owner XX’s request to recalculate maintenance and heating. The association did not substantiate exclusion of some premises from cost allocation.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-14923/25Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Vestervalli tn 6: court ordered recalculation of maintenance and heating charges

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Vestervalli tn 6 korteriühistu · 80170874

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant XX — owner; interested person — Narva linn, Vestervalli tn 6 korteriühistu; applicant’s representative XX; association’s representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

The court granted owner XX’s request to recalculate maintenance and heating. The association did not substantiate exclusion of some premises from cost allocation.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Owner XX obtained recalculation of charges from the apartment association Narva linn, Vestervalli tn 6. The court declared the maintenance and heating debt claimed against the owner absent as of 31 December 2024. The dispute concerned the floor area used to allocate common costs. The owner relied on the common ownership share and full premises area in the land register. The association excluded some non-residential premises and also accounted for some premises switching to independent heating. The applicant sought a declaration of no debt and an order to change the calculation. After clarification, the association accepted absence of maintenance debt but continued opposing the heating demands, relying on meeting decisions, articles and technical system features. The court examined the claims fully despite partial admission. For maintenance, the association did not prove a proper basis for allocating costs other than by common ownership shares. The court accepted the applicant’s calculation. For heating, it distinguished the ability to change the system from the basis for allocating costs afterwards. It did not find it proved that switching to independent heating itself required every owner’s consent. However, Vestervalli tn 6’s articles lacked sufficiently specific cost redistribution rules for this situation. The court did not accept meeting decisions as a substitute for the necessary agreement. It excluded another association’s articles as irrelevant to the dispute. The ruling of 30 June 2025 declared no maintenance debt of 724,07 euros or heating debt of 885,76* euros for August 2021 to December 2024 and ordered recalculation. Costs were allocated to the association, with the amount set separately. The court decided charges for that period, rather than awarding repayment of those sums to the applicant.

Outcome of this decision

Declare that applicant XX owes the association no maintenance debt of 724,07 euros or heating debt of 885,76* euros as of 31.12.2024 for August 2021 to December 2024. Require recalculation of those payments. Allocate costs to the association and determine the amount separately after entry into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
6. Narva linn, Vestervalli tn 6 korteriühistu shall bear the procedural costs.
First instance
Case 2-24-11128Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 10b korteriühistu · 80145534

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesLate-payment interest and consequences of delayHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesWater and sewerageCalculation of water charges

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought a new period’s arrears from former owner XX; no response followed service by public notice.

· Order awarding debtViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-24-11128/11Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kangelaste prospekt 10b: the former owner’s arrears

Order awarding debt · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 10b korteriühistu · 80145534

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 10b korteriühistu; Person concerned, former owner — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought a new period’s arrears from former owner XX; no response followed service by public notice.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 10b korteriühistu sought management and utility costs from former owner XX for a new period. An earlier case covered an earlier period; the present claim did not repeat that award. The association also sought late-payment interest, costs and retention of security for enforcement. Documents were served through official public notice and no response arrived by the deadline. The court decided the application in writing, emphasising its duty to verify legality and evidence despite the lack of objections. Failure to respond was not treated as an independent ground for recovery. The court held that loss of ownership does not release a former owner from obligations arising before transfer. It examined the amount and allocation of charges using register information, the articles, calculations, rates and supplier documents. The charges included maintenance, repair-fund contributions and utilities. The evidence was accepted as sufficient. For late-payment interest, the court stated that the articles alone could not establish a rate above the statutory rate and checked that the claim used the statutory rate. On 4 April 2025, it awarded principal, accrued late-payment interest and further statutory late-payment interest on principal until payment. The earlier security remained in place to enforce the order; it was not an additional monetary award. XX was also ordered to pay 489 euros in costs: two state fees, legal work and evidence. Statutory late-payment interest on costs runs from entry into force. Subsequent payment is not established.

Outcome of this decision

Award principal, accrued and further statutory late-payment interest on principal until payment against XX, plus 489 euros in costs with late-payment interest from entry into force. Retain the existing security for enforcement.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Allow the application.
First instance
Case 2-24-104626Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12a korteriühistu · 80137948

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesLate-payment interest and consequences of delayHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairs

How it started · editorial summary

After unsuccessful service in payment-order proceedings, the association submitted an amended application and additional evidence of charges; owner XX did not respond.

· Order on an application to recover debtViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-24-104626/17Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kangelaste prospekt 12a: evidence supporting management charges

Order on an application to recover debt · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12a korteriühistu · 80137948

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12a korteriühistu; Person concerned, owner — XX

How it started · editorial summary

After unsuccessful service in payment-order proceedings, the association submitted an amended application and additional evidence of charges; owner XX did not respond.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12a korteriühistu sought management-cost arrears from owner XX for the claimed period. Payment-order proceedings ended because the payment proposal could not be served, and the case went to Viru Maakohus. Documents were later served by public notice through the official publication; the owner filed no response or objections. The court required further evidence for each charge and clarification of repair-fund payments. The association supplied additional reasons, invoices, monthly calculations, its articles, meeting records, servicing contracts and heat-cost documents. The ruling therefore did not merely rely on the absence of a response. The court connected liability to membership, the allocation rules and meeting decisions. It accepted charges for servicing, heating and water circulation, a designated levy and gas-equipment servicing as proved and established the principal debt. On 21 March 2025, it awarded principal, accrued late-payment interest and further statutory late-payment interest until payment. XX was also ordered to pay 571.50 euros in costs, covering state fees, legal work and evidence, with late-payment interest from entry into force. The order requires service by public notice, deemed effective 15 days after publication of the extract. Actual subsequent service and the outcome of any appeal are not established by the text.

Outcome of this decision

Award principal, accrued and further statutory late-payment interest until payment against XX, plus 571.50 euros in costs with late-payment interest from entry into force. Direct service of the order by public notice.

A checked extract in this language is not yet available.

First instance
Case 2-23-147941Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Malmi tn 12 korteriühistu · 80250389

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesRepairs and shared propertyBills and justification of charges

How it started · editorial summary

The court assessed the owner’s objections concerning heated area and repairs.

· Court orderViru Maakohus Jõhvi kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-23-147941/17Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Management charges and heating objections

Court order · Viru Maakohus Jõhvi kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Malmi tn 12 korteriühistu · 80250389

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, Malmi tn 12 korteriühistu; person concerned XX — debtor

How it started · editorial summary

The court assessed the owner’s objections concerning heated area and repairs.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Malmi tn 12 korteriühistu claimed management-charge arrears and late-payment interest from owner XX. XX relied on the lack of a heater in part of the premises and defects in common property. The court examined payments, bills and meeting decisions on tariffs and found the claim proved. Heat from other rooms also reaches the room without a radiator, so it was not excluded from the calculation. Complaints about repairs did not remove the duty to pay management charges and comply with association decisions. Principal, accrued and continuing statutory late-payment interest until performance, and 445* euros in costs were awarded. The order does not establish the current balance or performance.

Outcome of this decision

Claim allowed; debt, late-payment interest and 445* euros in costs awarded.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Allow the application of Narva linn, Malmi tn 12 korteriühistu against XX for management-charge arrears.
First instance
Case 2-22-139489Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 10b korteriühistu · 80145534

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesLate-payment interest and consequences of delayHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesWater and sewerageCalculation of water chargesRepairs and shared propertyFaçade, windows and balconiesOrganisation and funding of repairs

How it started · editorial summary

The court required evidence of tariffs and services despite the absence of a response.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-139489/31Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Checking the basis of management charges

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 10b korteriühistu · 80145534

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 10b korteriühistu; person concerned XX — debtor

How it started · editorial summary

The court required evidence of tariffs and services despite the absence of a response.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 10b korteriühistu claimed management-charge arrears and accrued late-payment interest from XX. After unsuccessful service of a payment proposal, the case was transferred to the county court. The court deemed documents served through the letterbox once procedural conditions were satisfied; XX did not respond. The court requested further evidence of the basis of the charges. The charter, meeting decisions on tariffs and a facade fund, supplier contracts and heating and water-circulation calculations proved the obligation and debt. The application was allowed. Principal, accrued late-payment interest, 470 euros in costs and statutory late-payment interest on costs from entry into force of the decision fixing them were awarded. Continuing late-payment interest on principal was not awarded in the operative part. Subsequent performance is not established.

Outcome of this decision

Application allowed; debt, accrued late-payment interest and 470 euros in costs with statutory late-payment interest on costs awarded.

A checked extract in this language is not yet available.

First instance
Case 2-21-142079Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 42 korteriühistu · 80175430

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayBills and justification of chargesPayment accounting and set-offHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating charges

How it started · editorial summary

The court rejected the objection that payments were unrecorded and awarded remaining debt. Charges were checked against decisions, invoices and bank data.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-21-142079/30Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kangelaste prospekt 42: court found payments correctly recorded and awarded remaining debt

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 42 korteriühistu · 80175430

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 42 korteriühistu; interested person XX — owner; association’s representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

The court rejected the objection that payments were unrecorded and awarded remaining debt. Charges were checked against decisions, invoices and bank data.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court awarded the apartment association Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 42 a debt balance against owner XX. It checked bank data and the association’s calculation and found the owner’s proven payments accounted for. The association sought maintenance charges and interest. During proceedings it updated the amount for new charges and funds received. The owner claimed regular payment and challenged invoices, meeting minute extracts and interest calculations. The owner also demanded supplier contracts and considered charges unproven without them. The court examined articles, rate approval decisions, supplier invoices and payment data. Common electricity and waste collection were included in the maintenance rate set by the meeting, not charged separately. It found no excessive heating charges. The validity of meeting decisions was not at issue in this case. Comparing the owner’s statements with the association’s calculation, the court found matching payments and dates. The owner supplied no proof of payment of the remaining disputed invoices. The court derived entitlement to statutory interest from the law and articles, rejecting the argument that a separate meeting decision was required for this recovery. The ruling of 29 July 2022 awarded principal, accrued interest and further statutory interest on principal until payment. It also awarded 606 euros in procedural costs against the owner. This is the outcome established then; subsequent performance is not confirmed.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the association’s application. Award principal, accrued interest and further statutory interest on principal until performance against interested person XX. Allocate costs to that person and award 606 euros.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Grant Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 42 korteriühistu’s debt application against XX.
First instance
Case 2-21-112650Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Masina tn 3 korteriühistu · 80480764

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayBills and justification of chargesHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesWater and sewerageCalculation of water charges

How it started · editorial summary

The owner, a commercial company, appealed against recovery, citing non-receipt of invoices and case documents.

· RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-21-112650/21Read actAppeal

Separate act page

A. Bastrakovi tn 3: Peremaakler’s appeal against debt recovery dismissed

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, A. Bastrakovi tn 3 korteriühistu · OÜ Peremaakler · 80480764 · 11523072

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — apartment association; Debtor and appellant — OÜ Peremaakler

How it started · editorial summary

The owner, a commercial company, appealed against recovery, citing non-receipt of invoices and case documents.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Tartu Ringkonnakohus upheld the award against OÜ Peremaakler in favour of Narva linn, A. Bastrakovi tn 3 korteriühistu: 1003,78 euros in building maintenance costs and 44,69 euros in late-payment interest. The company’s appeal was dismissed and appeal costs allocated to it. The county court was to determine court costs later. The company claimed it had received neither association invoices nor court documents and could not inspect the application or object. The circuit court checked the judicial information system. It showed that materials were sent to the company and one statutory representative confirmed receipt. Documents were also sent to another representative at an address known to the court from other proceedings, with a service procedure warning. The court found the company had an opportunity to present its position. The court also examined the grounds for charges. The association supplied invoices, accounting data, articles, decisions approving management plans, and heating and gas equipment maintenance supplier invoices. The court considered these to prove the costs and allocation between owners, with charges consistent with the adopted procedure. The company gave no specific objections to the debt calculation in its appeal. The award was therefore upheld after checks of both service and debt evidence. The ruling does not confirm actual payment of the sums awarded.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss the appeal and uphold the ruling of 22 September 2021. Allocate appeal costs to OÜ Peremaakler, with the amount set later by the county court.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Dismiss the appeal against the ruling and uphold the Viru Maakohus ruling of 22 September 2021.
Appeal
Case 2-16-16599Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu · 80189721

Contracts and servicesTenancy and leaseHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesApartment association bills, payments and debtsBills and justification of chargesLimitation of claimsRepairs and shared propertyBasement, stairwell and shared roomsDebt claimsApartment association meetings and decisionsBudget, management plan and rates

How it started · editorial summary

The dispute concerned the basis for extra charges for the shared staircase and the floor area used to charge heating for non-residential premises.

· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-16-16599/17Read act

Separate act page

Stairwell and heating charges: judgment reversed and case remitted

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Osaühing Brainella · Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu · 10294480 · 80189721

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Defendant and appellant — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu; Claimant and respondent on appeal — Osaühing Brainella

How it started · editorial summary

The association appealed a declaration that the company owed no stairwell and heating debt. The appellate court reversed for inadequate examination of the basis and calculation and remitted the case.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Osaühing Brainella sought a declaration that it owed Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu nothing for use and heating of a separated part of a stairwell. Its claim was clarified to 1354.51 euros. It disputed a 15.98 euros monthly charge and additional floor area used for heating. The first-instance court granted the claim and the association appealed. Tartu Ringkonnakohus found the claim’s scope, the charges’ legal basis and their amount inadequately examined. Absence of a proved lease did not yet exclude a possible charge under owners’ resolutions on common-property use. Those resolutions should not simply have been disregarded. The amended claim’s limits and burden of proof also required clarification. The court rejected the association’s limitation objection to the declaration claim itself. Its position might have a different significance for its monetary claim, but neither debt nor its absence was finally established. The 16.01.2018 judgment was reversed and the case remitted to the same court, with costs to follow the rehearing’s result. Success on appeal was not an award or cancellation of the disputed sum.

Outcome of this decision

The association’s appeal was granted. Viru Maakohus’s judgment of 16.01.2018 was reversed and the case remitted. The basis and amount of charges require further examination; no final debt was established. The first-instance court will decide costs according to the further outcome.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Grant the appeal. […] Reverse Viru Maakohus’s judgment of 16 January 2018. Remit the case to Viru Maakohus for rehearing.
Appeal
· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-16599/37Read act

Separate act page

Charges for part of a stairwell and heating: the basis of charges and later reversal

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Osaühing Brainella · Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu · 10294480 · 80189721

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — Osaühing Brainella; Defendant — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

Osaühing Brainella challenged charges for using and heating part of a stairwell. The first-instance court declared only that no lease existed; the appellate court later granted all claims, reversing the refusals and the costs allocation.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Osaühing Brainella sought declarations against Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu that no lease existed and no payment was owed for part of a stairwell. It also sought heating calculations based only on 88.4 m² and a declaration that 285.63 euros was not owed for 28.02.2011–31.01.2016. Invoices included a monthly charge of 15.98 euros. The case was being reheard after reversal and remittal of an earlier judgment. The court found no evidence of a lease and granted that declaration. However, additional charges could arise from owners’ resolutions governing use of common property rather than a contract. Calling a charge rent did not change its legal basis. The company did not deny exclusive use of part of the stairwell. The relevant resolutions had not been invalidated, and the court found no grounds of nullity. It therefore refused a declaration of no payment duty. It also rejected the requested heating-area declaration and the related claim that 285.63 euros was not owed. This judgment did not itself award that sum for enforcement. The association must bear 25% of the company’s costs and the company 75% of the association’s costs, with amounts determined separately. Later, on 26 February 2021, Tartu Ringkonnakohus reversed the refusal of the remaining claims and the costs allocation, granting the claim in full. It held that the earlier tariffs applied only in the relevant financial years and that no basis for the additional charge after 2010 had been proved. It declared that the disputed charge was not payable, heating for 28.02.2011–31.01.2016 was payable on an area of 88.4 m², and the heating debt of 285.63 euros did not exist as at 31.01.2016. The association bears costs at both levels, with amounts to be fixed separately.

Outcome of this decision

Initially, the court declared that no lease existed and rejected the remaining claims; it did not award 285.63 euros, and costs were allocated 25%/75%. On 26 February 2021, Tartu Ringkonnakohus reversed the refusals and the costs allocation: it declared that the disputed charge was not payable, heating for 28.02.2011–31.01.2016 was payable on an area of 88.4 m², and the heating debt of 285.63 euros did not exist as at 31.01.2016. The association bears costs at both levels, with amounts to be fixed separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Declare that OÜ Brainella and Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu have no obligations arising from a rental or lease agreement.
First instance
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-16-16599/43Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Brainella: association decisions did not support additional stair-use and heating charges

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Osaühing Brainella · Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu · 10294480 · 80189721

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and appellant – Osaühing Brainella; Defendant – Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The dispute concerned the basis for extra charges for the shared staircase and the floor area used to charge heating for non-residential premises.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The circuit court granted Osaühing Brainella’s claim in full, declaring no obligation to pay the disputed rent and no additional heating debt. Osaühing Brainella sought a declaration that it did not have to pay rent or the disputed extra heating charge to the apartment association at A. Puškini tn 12. The company owned non-residential premises. The association charged for use of a separated stair section and calculated heating over a larger area. The company objected that no lease existed and heating should be charged for its premises’ area of 88,4 m². The association argued that the extra charges were based on general meeting decisions and use of the separated staircase expressed consent to the charge. On rehearing, Viru Maakohus confirmed there was no contract but found a payment duty based on meeting decisions. The company appealed dismissal of the rest of its demands. Tartu Ringkonnakohus agreed that an owners’ majority can in principle decide ordinary management of shared property. However, these particular decisions had been adopted with the 2004, 2005 and 2010 management plans and applied within those respective years. The association did not establish a basis for the disputed charges in later years. The circuit court granted the claim in full. It declared no lease relationship or rent obligation and that heating from 28 February 2011 to 31 January 2016 was payable on an area of 88,4 m². The company did not owe 285,63 euros in heating debt as at 31 January 2016. All litigation costs at both levels were imposed on the association, to be quantified by the county court after finality. No demand to demolish the partition was decided in this case.

Outcome of this decision

Grant Brainella’s claim in full: no lease relationship or rent payment duty exists; heating for the stated period is calculated on 88,4 m²; no debt of 285,63 euros is owed. The association bears costs at both levels, to be quantified separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2.1. Grant the claim by osaühing Brainella against Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu.
Appeal