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

Apartment association / building

Year of actCourt level

Reset all

Case 2-16-13377Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 44 korteriühistu · 80146002

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

How it started · editorial summary

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

11.03.2019 · JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-13377/118Read act

Separate act page

Defective roof works: recovery of rectification costs

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

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

Entry into force has not been reverified

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

How it started · editorial summary

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

The dispute and the court’s decision

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

Outcome of this decision

OÜ IMHOTEPKOMP must pay the association 1500 euros within the amount claimed. It bears its own and the association’s procedural costs, the latter to be fixed separately. Permission to appeal was granted.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

Grant the claim in full. […] The court grants permission to appeal.

18.10.2019 · JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-16-13377/130Read actAppeal18.10.2019

Separate act page

Kangelaste 44: contractor must reimburse correction of roof defects

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

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

Entry into force has not been reverified

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

How it started · editorial summary

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

The dispute and the court’s decision

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

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss IMHOTEPKOMP’s appeal and uphold the association’s 1 500-euro award. Amend the reasoning in part. The contractor bears appeal costs, to be quantified separately.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

1. Dismiss the appeal and leave the Viru Maakohus judgment of 11 March 2019 unchanged. Amend the county court judgment’s reasoning in part.

Case 2-16-12373Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Joala tn 11 korteriühistu · 80189885

Damage and insuranceFireCause and proof of damageAmount of compensationRepairs and shared propertyRoof and attic

How it started · editorial summary

The court found the association liable for damage during firefighting but accepted only part of the loss claimed.

23.08.2019 · JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-12373/71Read actFirst instance23.08.2019

Separate act page

Joala 11 Narva: partial compensation for damage caused during firefighting

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Korteriühistu Joala 11 Narva · If P&C Insurance AS · 80189885 · 10100168

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — owner XX; Defendant — Korteriühistu Joala 11 Narva; Third party on the defendant’s side — If P&C Insurance AS

How it started · editorial summary

The court found the association liable for damage during firefighting but accepted only part of the loss claimed.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court partly granted owner XX’s claim against the apartment association Joala 11 Narva and awarded 2 647,72 euros for apartment damage during firefighting. Owner XX sought compensation from Korteriühistu Joala 11 Narva for water damage during extinguishing an attic fire on 15 January 2014. The final claim was 18 186,32 euros. The association disputed liability and the amount of loss. Insurer If P&C Insurance AS participated on its side as a third party without an independent claim. After the appeal court set aside an earlier dismissal, the county court reconsidered the case. It found the association the proper defendant: maintaining common property and ensuring safety were its duties. From witness testimony and Rescue Board materials, it concluded that one attic entrance had been unlocked. In the court’s view, this allowed outsiders in and led to the fire during whose extinguishing the apartment was damaged. However, the claimant did not prove the entire amount sought. The assessments submitted were made more than a year after the fire and could not reliably separate firefighting damage from earlier defects. The court preferred inspection materials prepared soon after the event and the corresponding restoration estimate. The claim was partly granted, with 2 647,72 euros awarded against the association. Each participant bears its own court costs. The court applied the law in force when the damage arose. Use of the decision in a new dispute should take account of subsequent legislative changes and the specific circumstances.

Outcome of this decision

Partly grant the claim: award XX 2 647,72 euros against Korteriühistu Joala 11 Narva. Each participant bears its own court costs.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

3. The parties shall bear their own procedural costs in full.

Case 2-16-12373Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Korteriühistu XX Narva · If P&C Insurance AS

Damage and insuranceFireLeaks and floodingCause and proof of damageInsurance payment and insurer’s claimRepairs and shared propertyRoof and attic

How it started · editorial summary

The court required examination of fire-safety measures and the basis of the association’s liability.

22.03.2018 · JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-16-12373/34Read actAppeal22.03.2018

Separate act page

Fire in a shared attic: the compensation dispute was remitted

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Korteriühistu XX Narva · If P&C Insurance AS · · 10100168

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and appellant — owner XX; defendant — Korteriühistu XX Narva; third party — If P&C Insurance AS

How it started · editorial summary

The court required examination of fire-safety measures and the basis of the association’s liability.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Owner XX sought compensation from Korteriühistu XX Narva for water damage caused while extinguishing a fire in the shared attic. The association disputed liability and the amount of loss; insurer If P&C Insurance AS participated as a third party. The first-instance court dismissed the claim for lack of proof of a breach by the association. The appellate court reversed and remitted the case. Association duties may arise directly from statute, rather than solely from its articles or meeting resolutions. Maintaining the common attic and basic fire safety are association responsibilities; failure to act may give rise to liability. The cause of the fire remained unresolved. The association must prove what safety measures it took; the court pointed to the need for a Päästeamet assessment of fire safety. Liability insurance does not remove the injured owner’s right to claim against the association. The insurer’s willingness to reimburse part of the loss and payments to other owners required examination, but did not constitute a final award in this claim. On rehearing, liability must be established first and the amount of loss then examined. The first-instance court will allocate costs according to the new outcome.

Outcome of this decision

The dismissal was reversed and the case remitted; liability and the amount of compensation remain undecided.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

2. Remit the civil case to Viru Maakohus for fresh examination.

Case 2-16-129736Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Malmi tn 10 korteriühistu · 80175972

Contracts and servicesWorks contracts and designPayment, advance payments and refundsRepairs and shared propertyRoof and atticOrganisation and funding of repairs

How it started · editorial summary

The extra 500 euros was not awarded: in this case the signed invoice confirmed receipt of the document, rather than agreement to increase the price.

29.09.2017 · JudgmentViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-16-129736/36Read act

Separate act page

Malmitare and OÜ Hiolen: an invoice did not prove an extra-payment agreement

Judgment · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

OÜ Hiolen · KÜ Malmitare · 12530714 · 80175972

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — OÜ Hiolen; defendant — KÜ Malmitare

How it started · editorial summary

A signature acknowledging receipt did not prove agreement on extra materials and price.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Malmitare (now — Narva linn, Malmi tn 10 korteriühistu). OÜ Hiolen sought 500 euros from KÜ Malmitare for additional roofing materials. The main roof-repair contract had been performed: the works were accepted and the agreed price paid. The dispute concerned a separate extra charge. The contractor treated the association representative’s signature on the invoice as confirmation of a contract amendment; the association said it only acknowledged receipt. The court agreed with the association. The contract prescribed a written amendment procedure which had not been followed. The acceptance record, final invoice, correspondence and meeting minutes did not establish an additional agreement. The documents and disputed invoice identified the same roofing material. The signature on the invoice was insufficient to prove a new obligation to pay for materials. The claim was dismissed. Hiolen bears its own and the association’s costs; the latter will be quantified separately after finality. The court granted permission to appeal.

Outcome of this decision

The 500-euro extra charge was refused; OÜ Hiolen bears costs, with the association’s costs quantified separately.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

1. Dismiss OÜ Hiolen’s claim.

19.01.2018 · JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-16-129736/45Read actAppeal19.01.2018

Separate act page

Malmitare: contractor did not prove agreement on extra payment for roofing material

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

OÜ Hiolen · KÜ Malmitare · 12530714 · 80175972

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and appellant – OÜ Hiolen, contractor; Defendant – KÜ Malmitare, customer

How it started · editorial summary

The extra 500 euros was not awarded: in this case the signed invoice confirmed receipt of the document, rather than agreement to increase the price.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Tartu Ringkonnakohus dismissed OÜ Hiolen’s appeal and upheld the refusal to award an additional 500 euros for roofing material against KÜ Malmitare. The court found that the contractor had not proved the association’s consent to increase the price or enter a separate additional-payment agreement. The contractor had repaired the roof and alleged that the parties agreed to buy higher-quality material for an additional charge. It relied on an invoice dated 4 November 2014 signed by representatives of both parties and sworn testimony from its representative. It argued that the signatures confirmed a contract amendment. The association objected that it had fully paid the agreed price of 28 378,12 euros for works and materials. It said the signature on the additional invoice confirmed only receipt of the document. There was no agreement to increase the price, and the final invoice and acceptance certificate retained the former price. The circuit court agreed with the association. The contractual estimate bound the contractor. To demand more, it had to prove a change to the total price or a separate agreement to cover the increase. The contract required a written amendment procedure: a written proposal by one party and a written reply by the other within five working days. The court did not see expressed consent to amend the contract in the disputed invoice; a note about agreement between the parties was insufficient. Neither the association’s conduct nor the contractor representative’s testimony established a separate agreement. Dismissal of the claim remained in force. Appeal costs were imposed on OÜ Hiolen; the county court will quantify them after the judgment becomes final. The judgment concerns proof of this specific extra charge and does not establish that a signature on any invoice always has the same meaning.

Outcome of this decision

Leave the Viru Maakohus judgment of 29 September 2017 unchanged and dismiss OÜ Hiolen’s appeal. The contractor bears appeal costs; the county court will quantify them after the judgment becomes final.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

The county court shall determine the monetary amount of litigation costs when the judgment becomes final.

Case 2-15-16043Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kraavi tn 12 korteriühistu · 80310766

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

How it started · editorial summary

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

15.07.2016 · JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-16043/43Read act

Separate act page

Damages claimed for an alleged leak after roof repairs

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ KRAAVI 12 · 80310766

Entry into force has not been reverified

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

How it started · editorial summary

The alleged damage after repairs was not found proven.

The dispute and the court’s decision

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

Outcome of this decision

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

A checked extract in this language is not yet available.

24.04.2017 · JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-15-16043/63Read actAppeal24.04.2017

Separate act page

Kraavi 12: dismissal of damage claim following roof repairs upheld

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ Kraavi 12 · 80310766

Entry into force has not been reverified

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

How it started · editorial summary

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

The dispute and the court’s decision

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

Outcome of this decision

Leave the judgment of 15 July 2016 unchanged and dismiss the appeal. Damage in the alleged circumstances was not proved; other conditions for the association’s liability were not examined separately.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

2. Dismiss the appeal.

Case 2-14-20708Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 19 korteriühistu · 80054978

Damage and insuranceLeaks and floodingCause and proof of damageAmount of compensationRepairs and shared propertyRoof and attic

How it started · editorial summary

The need for repairs did not establish the cause and amount of new loss from the particular leak.

07.04.2017 · JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-14-20708/51Read actAppeal07.04.2017

Separate act page

Puškini tn 19: the link between damage and a roof leak was not proved

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Puškini tn 19 Korteriühistu · 80054978

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and appellant — owner XX; defendant — Puškini tn 19 Korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The need for repairs did not establish the cause and amount of new loss from the particular leak.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Puškini tn 19 Korteriühistu (now — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 19 korteriühistu). Owner XX sought compensation from Puškini tn 19 Korteriühistu for damage attributed to a roof leak. The first-instance court dismissed the claim. The appellate court upheld that decision: damage in the alleged circumstances, its amount and its causal link to the association’s conduct were not proved. Inspection records established a need for repairs, but not when or why the damage arose. Witness accounts conflicted. Earlier damage had not been shown to have been remedied; comparison of inspections did not establish deterioration caused by the alleged later leak. Nor was it proved that the water had actually come through the roof. New annotations on an earlier record did not establish those missing facts. The court separately explained that a damages claim does not pass automatically with an apartment under association-membership rules. However, the transfer agreement could be interpreted as assigning the claim. That did not remove the need to prove the loss itself. The appeal was dismissed and XX was ordered to pay the association 378 euros in appellate costs.

Outcome of this decision

The dismissal was upheld and the appeal refused; the association was awarded 378 euros in appellate costs.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

1. Leave the judgment of Viru Maakohus of 3 May 2016 unchanged.

Case 2-08-12127Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 10 korteriühistu · 80038614

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

How it started · editorial summary

The court considered OÜ Filmarinar’s appeal against the Viru Maakohus judgment of 08.05.2012 on the apartment association Puškini 10’s claim for building management costs, earmarked contributions and late-payment interest. The claim after increases was 6 030,64 euros.

18.06.2013 · JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-08-12127/46Read actAppeal18.06.2013

Separate act page

Apartment association Puškini 10 v OÜ Filmarinar: award reduced, some utility costs unproven

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ Puškini 10 · OÜ Filmarinar · 80038614 · 10294341

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — KÜ Puškini 10; respondent to the appeal; defendant — OÜ Filmarinar; appellant; claimant’s representative XX — association’s statutory representative; defendant’s representative XX — company’s statutory representative

How it started · editorial summary

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Puškini 10 sought payment from OÜ Filmarinar for building maintenance, earmarked contributions and services for the period from 1 March 2007 to 1 March 2011. After increases to the claim, the total was 6 030,64 euros. The association relied on an earlier agreement, meeting decisions, invoices and a schedule of charges. The defendant challenged the proof of costs, the documents and contractual grounds, as well as late-payment interest of 0,2% per day. On 8 May 2012, Viru Maakohus granted the claim in full. On the defendant’s appeal, the circuit court decided the case without remitting it to the first instance. It stated that an association member’s duty to pay for management of the building arises from the law; the existence of a document called an agreement does not itself make the relationship contractual. However, grounds for treating the earlier agreement as invalid or terminated had not been properly pleaded or proved in these proceedings. The court found the maintenance charge and earmarked roof repair contributions established by meeting decisions proven. For heating, waste collection and internet, however, the association’s invoices alone were insufficient: the actual costs and their allocation had to be proved. No additional evidence was submitted even after the appeal court invited it. That part of the claim was dismissed. The court also rejected the possibility of increasing by contract the statutory late-payment interest ceiling then applicable of 0,07% per day. The defendant’s allegations of damage were not determined as a counterclaim because no proper counterclaim had been filed. The appeal was partly allowed. The first-instance judgment was set aside, and a new judgment awarded 4 440,26 euros: 2 195,98 euros in principal and 2 244,28* euros in late-payment interest. Costs at both instances were allocated 73% to OÜ Filmarinar and 27% to the association.

Outcome of this decision

Set aside the Viru Maakohus judgment of 08.05.2012. Issue a new judgment partly granting the claim: order OÜ Filmarinar to pay the apartment association Puškini 10 a total of 4 440,26 euros for 01.03.2007–01.03.2011, comprising 2 195,98 euros in principal and 2 244,28* euros in late-payment interest. Partly allow the appeal. Allocate first-instance and appeal costs: 73% to OÜ Filmarinar and 27% to the apartment association Puškini 10.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

3. Partly allow OÜ Filmarinar’s appeal.

Case 2-10-62881Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 11 korteriühistu · 80170839

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

How it started · editorial summary

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

12.10.2012 · Order approving a settlementViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-10-62881/47Read actFirst instance12.10.2012

Separate act page

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

Order approving a settlement · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Puškini 11 · OÜ Lonstrong · 80170839 · 10632379

Entry into force has not been reverified

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

How it started · editorial summary

The dispute and the court’s decision

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

Outcome of this decision

Terminate proceedings and approve the settlement: OÜ Lonstrong is to pay the association 31 955,82 euros on the agreed schedule, and the association waives the remainder of its claims. All disputes under the contract of 09.04.2007 are resolved; each party bears its own costs. Reimburse the association 2 236,91 euros in court fees. The parties waived an appeal.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

1. Terminate proceedings on the claim by KÜ Puškini 11 against OÜ Lonstrong for damages of 55 453.72 euros. […] 31 955 (thirty-one thousand nine hundred and fifty-five) euros and 82 cents. The claimant waives the remaining claims. […] 5. The parties waive the right to appeal the court ruling.

Case 2-08-53183Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 10 korteriühistu · 80038614

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesWater and sewerageCalculation of water chargesHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesRepairs and shared propertyRoof and atticOrganisation and funding of repairs

How it started · editorial summary

On rehearing, the company’s management-charge debt was proved.

16.02.2011 · JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-08-53183/57Read actFirst instance16.02.2011

Separate act page

Management charges of a non-residential owner

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Puškini 10 · OÜ Analan Auto · 80038614 · 10339202

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant on rehearing — KÜ Puškini 10; defendant and non-residential owner — OÜ Analan Auto; claimant representative XX; claimant adviser XX; defendant representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

On rehearing, the company’s management-charge debt was proved.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Puškini 10 (now — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 10 korteriühistu). KÜ Puškini 10 claimed management and utility charges from OÜ Analan Auto. On 14 May 2010 Tartu Ringkonnakohus overturned the initial refusal of 18 December 2009 and remitted the case to establish the amount of costs. On rehearing, the court examined the charter, tariff and roof-repair decisions, corrected bills and a consolidated calculation. The company disputed the basis of charges and treated its payments as water payments. The court affirmed the non-residential owner’s common-cost obligations, found the claim proved and found the alleged water payments unsupported by the required evidence. The claim was allowed for 3,114.73* euros. The new reasoning states that no late-payment interest was claimed. Costs were imposed on the company without fixing their amount separately.

Outcome of this decision

3,114.73* euros awarded; company bears costs, whose amount was not separately fixed.

Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian

2. Leave court costs with the defendant.