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 2-25-697Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Rakvere tn 87 korteriühistu · 80152818

Apartment association meetings and decisionsApartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the board

How it started · editorial summary

Withdrawal ended the dispute over changing the board; the association’s costs were reduced.

· Court orderViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-25-697/32Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Rakvere tn 87: discontinuance of a dispute over meeting resolutions

Court order · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Rakvere tn 87 korteriühistu · 80152818

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — XX; person concerned — Narva linn, Rakvere tn 87 korteriühistu; five individual persons concerned — XX

How it started · editorial summary

Withdrawal ended the dispute over changing the board; the association’s costs were reduced.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Applicant XX challenged resolutions of the general meeting of Narva linn, Rakvere tn 87 korteriühistu, including removal and election of the board. The applicant sought a declaration of nullity or invalidation and interim protection. Interim protection had previously been refused. Before the hearing, the applicant withdrew the main application. The court accepted withdrawal and discontinued the case without deciding the legality of the meeting resolutions on the merits. A new application between the same participants on the same grounds and subject matter is precluded. Costs were placed on the applicant, but the association received 225 euros rather than the 600.10 euros claimed. The representative’s hourly rate was reasonable; necessary time was reduced from four hours to one and a half: the case was simple, the representative took no procedural steps and the hearing was cancelled in good time. Half the main application fee, 25 euros, is refunded; the fee for the already decided interim application is not. Other costs remain with the participants.

Outcome of this decision

The case was discontinued on withdrawal without a merits finding on the resolutions. The association was awarded 225 euros in costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Discontinue proceedings in civil case No 2-25-697.
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 2-23-12189Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 17 korteriühistu · 80236107

Apartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the boardApartment association meetings and decisions

How it started · editorial summary

The challenge to meeting decisions could not continue after applicant XX’s death because the demand concerning board status was personal.

· Ruling terminating proceedingsViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-23-12189/25Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kreenholmi tn 17: proceedings on board membership status terminated

Ruling terminating proceedings · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 17 korteriühistu · 80236107

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant – XX; interested association – Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 17 korteriühistu; three interested individuals – XX

How it started · editorial summary

The challenge to meeting decisions could not continue after applicant XX’s death because the demand concerning board status was personal.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Applicant XX challenged the Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 17 korteriühistu general meeting decisions of 22 August 2023, seeking a declaration of nullity, meaning no legal effect from adoption, or their invalidation. During proceedings, the representative reported the applicant’s death and requested termination. The association explained that the dispute concerned recalling the applicant from the board and the wish to retain that status. The court considered continuation with a legal successor but ultimately accepted that the disputed right was personal. Board membership status does not pass by inheritance. The representative did not seek a stay and did not substantiate continuation after a further inquiry. On 24 March 2025, the court ended proceedings because succession was impossible in this legal relationship. This is not dismissal of the demands or confirmation that the meeting decisions were lawful: the original merits were not decided. Each participant was left to bear its own costs; the court determined no reimbursable costs. The ruling allowed an appeal within 15 days from the day after receipt.

Outcome of this decision

Terminate proceedings because succession in the disputed legal relationship is impossible; each participant bears its own costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. The participants shall bear their own litigation costs. There are no reimbursable litigation costs.
First instance
Case 2-23-4315Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 17 korteriühistu · 80070061

Apartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the boardApartment association meetings and decisions

How it started · editorial summary

Four applicants XX challenged apartment association Kangelaste prospekt 17’s meeting decisions of 22.02.2023 changing board membership.

· Ruling terminating the case after applicants waived their applicationViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-23-4315/12Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Board composition dispute at apartment association Kangelaste prospekt 17 ended after a new meeting

Ruling terminating the case after applicants waived their application · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 17 korteriühistu · 80070061

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicants XX — four individuals; interested person — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 17 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

Four applicants XX challenged apartment association Kangelaste prospekt 17’s meeting decisions of 22.02.2023 changing board membership.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Four applicants XX sought a finding that general meeting decisions had no legal effect from adoption, or were void. The decisions were taken by Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 17 korteriühistu on 22 February 2023 to recall the former board and elect a new one. The court discovered in the register that another meeting on 18 October 2023 had elected the board afresh. Review of the February decisions would no longer affect the current composition, so it asked for views on continuing the case. The applicants agreed to termination but asked for 240 euros in costs to be allocated to former board and initiative group members. The court treated agreement as waiver of the application, accepted it and terminated without deciding nullity. The association’s representative also agreed to termination. Costs were left jointly and severally to the applicants; their request to determine reimbursable costs was rejected. The individuals they named were not parties and could not bear costs of these proceedings. The association incurred no proven costs: its response was prepared by a statutory representative. The court separately explained the possibility of an independent damages claim and requesting half the fee back. This act did not establish nullity of the February decisions.

Outcome of this decision

Terminate proceedings in case 2-23-4315. Leave costs jointly and severally to the applicants and reject their application to determine reimbursable costs; no sums are reimbursable to participants.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. The applicants shall bear the procedural costs jointly and severally.
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 2-21-2660Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 11 korteriühistu · 80170749

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeVoting and representationAgenda and minutesApartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the board

How it started · editorial summary

The written decisions on the board have no legal effect: the ballot questions did not show precisely what owners were voting on. The court did not separately assess whether enough votes were cast.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-21-2660/20Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kangelaste prospekt 11: written decisions on the board declared void because voting questions were unclear

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 11 korteriühistu · 80170749

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant XX – owner; interested person – Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 11 korteriühistu; applicant’s representative XX; association representative XX; board candidates XX

How it started · editorial summary

The written decisions on the board have no legal effect: the ballot questions did not show precisely what owners were voting on. The court did not separately assess whether enough votes were cast.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court declared the written decisions of owners of the apartment association Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 11 dated 22 December 2020 void. They had no legal effect from adoption because owners were not given clearly formulated voting questions. Applicant XX challenged a board election held without a meeting. The noticeboard named two issues: recalling the former board and electing a new board with a chair. The ballot, however, listed candidate names and for-or-against options without separating those issues. The applicant also alleged that the majority required by the articles had not been obtained. The association objected that the document’s substance mattered more than its title and the procedure had been followed. The board later decided not to implement the disputed decisions or change the register entry. The association proposed settlement with partial fee reimbursement. The applicant disagreed, including over costs allocation. The court found that the ballots did not make clear whether a vote meant recall of the old board or election of the new one. In a written vote, owners must have a clear draft decision. Its absence and unclear questions were a substantial breach of decision-making procedure. Having established nullity, the court did not examine the sufficiency of votes as a separate ground for invalidation. The board’s refusal to implement the decisions and absence of a register entry did not remove the owner’s interest in judicial review: validity does not depend only on submission to the register. The ruling of 5 September 2023 granted the application. The applicant’s costs were imposed on the association, which must also bear its own. The court left monetary quantification for a separate decision after finality.

Outcome of this decision

Grant owner XX’s application and declare the association’s decisions of 22.12.2020 void. The association bears the applicant’s costs and its own. Quantify costs separately after the ruling becomes final.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Declare the decisions of the apartment owners of Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 11 korteriühistu of 22.12.2020 void.
First instance
Case 2-22-11550Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 13 korteriühistu · 80445319

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeBudget, management plan and ratesArticles of association and amendmentsApartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the boardAuthority and representationRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairsAgenda and minutes

How it started · editorial summary

Owner XX obtained a declaration that decisions on repairs, the chair and maintenance charges were void. The court relied on breaches involving the agenda and preparation of the meeting.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-11550/8Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

P. Kerese tn 13: decisions on payments and chair void because of the meeting agenda

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 13 korteriühistu · 80445319

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant XX – owner; interested person – Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 13 korteriühistu; applicant’s representative XX; association representative and elected chair XX

How it started · editorial summary

Owner XX obtained a declaration that decisions on repairs, the chair and maintenance charges were void. The court relied on breaches involving the agenda and preparation of the meeting.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court declared several decisions of the apartment association Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 13 repeat meeting of 9 June 2022 without legal effect from adoption. Significant matters had not been identified in advance on the agenda, and access arrangements for the management plan being amended had not been provided. Owner XX challenged a special contribution of 5 euros per square metre to complete repairs, election of the chair, the chair’s monthly remuneration and a maintenance charge of 0,51 euros per square metre. XX argued that these decisions could not be taken under a general current-matters item. XX also disputed the meeting’s authority to elect the chair and the ability to impose payments outside the management plan. The association admitted the stated circumstances but asked that each participant bear its own costs. The applicant considered that the association should pay them. The court relied on the admitted facts: owners could not understand in advance which decisions would be taken. It regarded the chair and payments as significant matters and the convening breach as sufficient for nullity. Access arrangements for the management plan had not been properly specified. The court did not decide the other arguments: it imposed no general ban on a meeting electing a chair and did not separately assess payments outside the plan. The ruling of 10 October 2022 declared item 3 and items 4.1–4.3 void. Each bears its own costs. The court took account of the possibility of an out-of-court resolution and another meeting before the application was filed.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the application. Declare item 3 on the 5 euros/m² payment and items 4.1–4.3 on chair XX, monthly remuneration and the 0,51 euros/m² maintenance charge from 01.06.2022 void. Leave costs with the participants; none are reimbursed.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. The participants shall bear their own litigation costs. There are no reimbursable litigation costs.
First instance
Case 2-20-11613Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, […] korteriühistu

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeBudget, management plan and ratesApartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the boardRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairs

How it started · editorial summary

The court examined resolutions of a repeat meeting and a later written vote. The appeal court retained the voidness of the management-plan and later election resolutions, removing only a reference to a point on which no decision had been made.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-20-11613/46Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Board replacement and a management plan: different consequences of notice defects

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, […] korteriühistu ·

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: First applicant — XX; Other applicants, elected board members — XX; Person concerned — Narva linn, […] korteriühistu; Person concerned, former board member — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The court examined resolutions of a repeat meeting and a later written vote. The appeal court retained the voidness of the management-plan and later election resolutions, removing only a reference to a point on which no decision had been made.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Two applications concerning an association whose name and code are redacted in the source were examined together. The first applicant, XX, challenged resolutions of a repeat meeting on 03.08.2020 convened by an initiative group after the board refused. Other applicants, XX, challenged written resolutions of 24.02.2021 on another board replacement organised by the former board. The court recognised the initiative group’s right to convene: enough members had submitted a reasoned request and the board had refused. The repeat meeting procedure was regarded as compliant. However, management-plan materials had not been made available in advance and the notice did not explain access to them. Points 3–6 concerning the chair’s remuneration, improvements, repairs and changes to the financial plan were therefore declared void. Challenges to points 1, 7, 8 and 9, including removal of the former board and election of its replacement, were dismissed. The written resolutions of 24.02.2021 were declared void because they were organised by the removed board, and no request to the valid new board had been proved. Each participant was left to bear their own costs. On 28 October 2022, Tartu Ringkonnakohus retained the substantive result and first-instance costs allocation. It removed only the reference to point 2 of the 3 August 2020 meeting from the dismissal, because no resolution had been adopted on that point. Appeal costs were placed on the appellants, including reimbursement of the other group’s costs.

Outcome of this decision

Points 3–6 of the 3 August 2020 resolutions and the 24 February 2021 resolutions were declared void; challenges to points 1, 7, 8 and 9 were dismissed. On 28 October 2022, Tartu Ringkonnakohus removed only the reference to point 2, on which no decision had been made. First-instance costs remain each participant’s own; appeal costs fall on the appellants.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Leave each participant to bear their own procedural costs.
First instance
Case 2-20-14865Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu · 80183173

Apartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the boardApartment association meetings and decisions

How it started · editorial summary

The association accepted invalidity of the board composition decision and nullity of the chair’s election. The court approved an agreement with the city rather than deciding the initial arguments in a separate judgment.

· Court orderTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-20-14865/38Read act

Separate act page

Withdrawal of a board-election challenge: authority to represent the city

Court order · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu · Narva linn · Sihtasutus Narva Linnaelamu · 80183173 · · 90003404

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant and appellant against the order — Narva linn; Person concerned — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

Narva challenged an association’s board elections. The first-instance court left the application unexamined after its withdrawal, but the appellate court found the person withdrawing it lacked authority and remitted the case to continue.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn challenged resolutions of Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu made on 11.08.2020 about the board’s membership and selection of its chair. A board member of Sihtasutus Narva Linnaelamu later filed a withdrawal in the city’s name. Viru Maakohus consequently left the case unexamined and imposed costs on the applicant. The city appealed, arguing that the person had no authority to represent it. Tartu Ringkonnakohus distinguished the separate legal entities: being the foundation’s statutory representative did not itself confer authority to represent the municipality. The file contained no city power of attorney, necessary confirmation of representative qualifications or subsequent city approval of the withdrawal. The appellate court reversed the order of 09.08.2021 and remitted the case to the same court to continue. It did not decide the substantive validity of the board elections. It also indicated that the authority of another city representative might require further examination. The first-instance court must determine costs and their amount according to the subsequent result.

Outcome of this decision

The city’s appeal against the order was granted. The order leaving the application unexamined was reversed and the case remitted to Viru Maakohus to continue. The board elections’ substantive validity was not decided; costs depend on the further outcome.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Reverse Viru Maakohus’s order of 9 August 2021 and remit the civil case to the same county court to continue the proceedings. […] Grant the appeal against the order.
Appeal
· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-20-14865/49Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

A. Puškini tn 65: court approved agreement with city on board decisions

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn · SA Narva Linnaelamu · Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu · · · 80183173

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant – Narva linn through SA Narva Linnaelamu; interested person – Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu; representatives and persons affected by the elections XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association accepted invalidity of the board composition decision and nullity of the chair’s election. The court approved an agreement with the city rather than deciding the initial arguments in a separate judgment.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn and the apartment association Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 settled their dispute about election of the board at the meeting of 11 August 2020. The court approved the agreement and ended the case, retaining the right of appeal. The city applied through SA Narva Linnaelamu and challenged decisions on board composition and the chair. The ruling does not set out detailed initial arguments or objections. Under the agreement, the association recognised as invalid the decision electing the board’s composition and removing other persons from it. Separately, it recognised the chair’s election as void, meaning without legal effect from adoption. These are agreed terms approved by the court; the ruling contains no independent detailed analysis of the grounds for invalidity. The association undertook to reimburse SA Narva Linnaelamu 25 euros in court fees within 10 days after the ruling becomes final. A further 300 euros in city costs was payable under the agreement no later than 28 February 2022, although the ruling itself is dated 3 March 2022. The source does not report whether that payment was made. Participants bear expenses not covered by the agreement themselves. The court checked the settlement’s permissibility and enforceability and approved it. A partial fee refund from the state budget was left to a separate decision. It rejected the parties’ request to exclude appeals, considering that arrangement impermissible in the procedure used. The agreed obligation to reimburse costs does not establish actual payment.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement on invalidity of the board composition election of 11.08.2020 and nullity of chair XX’s election. The association reimburses 25 euros in court fees within 10 days after finality and 300 euros in city costs by the agreed deadline of 28.02.2022. Terminate proceedings. Leave other costs with the participants and decide the fee refund separately. Refuse exclusion of appeals.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Terminate proceedings in civil case No. 2-20-14865.
First instance
Case 2-20-11613Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu · 80069939

Apartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the board

How it started · editorial summary

In a board-election dispute, the first-instance court temporarily prohibited new resolutions concerning the board and its members’ powers. The appellate court set the measure aside because the association, as a person concerned, could not request it in these proceedings.

· Court orderTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-20-11613/23Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Ban on new board elections: interim measure set aside

Court order · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu · 80069939

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant and appellant against the order — XX; Person concerned I — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu; Person concerned II — XX

How it started · editorial summary

In a board-election dispute, the first-instance court temporarily prohibited new resolutions concerning the board and its members’ powers. The appellate court set the measure aside because the association, as a person concerned, could not request it in these proceedings.

The dispute and the court’s decision

XX challenged the 03.08.2020 repeat-meeting resolutions of Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu. The association sought appointment of a substitute board member or a ban on meetings until the dispute ended. Instead of banning all meetings, Viru Maakohus prohibited resolutions concerning the board and members’ authority during proceedings. XX appealed. Tartu Ringkonnakohus held that interim protection in these proceedings could be granted at the applicant’s request. The association was a person concerned and had brought no claim of its own, so it was not entitled to request the measure. Nor did public interest justify intervention to protect it without an applicant’s request. The appellate court set the order aside and itself refused the association’s interim-protection application. It did not determine the substantive validity of board elections. It also noted uncertainty about representatives acting under powers of attorney issued by different boards. The first-instance court must examine that issue and requests concerning participation in the case. Costs will be decided with the main case.

Outcome of this decision

The appeal was granted: the prohibition on resolutions concerning the board and its members’ powers was set aside and the association’s interim-protection request refused. This does not decide the elections’ validity. The first-instance court will determine costs in the final ruling.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Grant XX’s appeal against the order. […] The county court will determine the allocation and amount of procedural costs in its final ruling in the case.
Appeal
Case 2-19-18809Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 43 korteriühistu · 80274757

Apartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the boardApartment association meetings and decisionsQuorum and repeat meetingsArticles of association and amendments

How it started · editorial summary

The board registration dispute depended on which version of the articles determined the meeting quorum.

· RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-19-18809/8Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Kangelaste prospekt 43: refusal to amend board details set aside

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 43 korteriühistu · 80274757

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant and appellant — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 43 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The board registration dispute depended on which version of the articles determined the meeting quorum.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The circuit court set aside refusal to amend board details for the apartment association Kangelaste prospekt 43 and remitted the entry question to the registry department. Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 43 korteriühistu sought removal of two board members’ details and amendment of the end dates for three others. The registry department refused, considering that the deciding meeting lacked the required majority. The association objected that an earlier version of the articles had been applied. Tartu Ringkonnakohus allowed the appeal and remitted the entry question. It found that the 2011 meeting had adopted articles with a quorum, meaning the required attendance, of at least one third of members or representatives. A later meeting changed only the board’s term. Yet the 2016 application attached a text with wider changes, including the former requirement for more than half the members. Attaching that text without a corresponding meeting decision does not make those provisions part of the articles. The circuit court directed that the 2011 one-third rule be used for quorum and that the current version of the articles be established. The registry file also contained powers of attorney in Russian: the applicant must be given time to supply an Estonian translation by a sworn translator. The appeal ruling does not itself amend the board details or complete registration. It sets aside refusal and requires reconsideration using the proper articles and documents. Costs remain with the applicant; because the appeal succeeded, a fee refund may be requested separately.

Outcome of this decision

Allow the appeal and set aside the registry department’s refusal of 8 November 2019. Remit the entry question for reconsideration; this act does not make the entry itself.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Allow Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 43 korteriühistu’s appeal against the ruling.
Appeal
Case 2-15-18123Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 19 korteriühistu · 80021192

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeArticles of association and amendmentsBudget, management plan and ratesApartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the boardParking and groundsConstruction of parking facilities

How it started · editorial summary

The court approved the agreement between Narva linn and the association on nullity of the listed meeting decisions and reimbursement of costs; proceedings were terminated.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-18123/43Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kangelaste 19: court approved city and association’s agreement on nullity of meeting decisions

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn · Narva Linnaelamu · Kangelaste pr 19 korteriühistu · · 11129843 · 80021192

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — Narva linn through Narva Linnaelamu; defendant — apartment association; parties’ representatives XX; former management board chair XX

How it started · editorial summary

The court approved the agreement between Narva linn and the association on nullity of the listed meeting decisions and reimbursement of costs; proceedings were terminated.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court approved an agreement between Narva linn, acting through Narva Linnaelamu, and the apartment association Kangelaste pr 19 and terminated the case. The city challenged the association’s general meeting decision of 20 June 2015, seeking a finding of nullity, meaning absence of legal effect, or alternatively to have it set aside. Under the agreement, the association accepted that the meeting decisions of 11 February 2016 electing a board, choosing an audit firm, confirming the meeting decision of 20 June 2015 and amending the articles were void because the convening procedure had been breached. The agreement also lists related decisions on reporting, the management plan, board activities and membership, moving a playground and building a parking area, which the parties acknowledged as void. The court checked that the agreement did not conflict with the law, good morals or the public interest. The association undertook to reimburse the city a 150 euro fee and 1100 euros in legal assistance costs. The court additionally ordered a refund to the city of 150 euros of the fee paid, payable after the ruling enters into force. The parties waived appeals. If the agreement is not performed, the creditor may apply to a bailiff; the act contains no information on actual performance.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement on nullity of the listed general meeting decisions and terminate proceedings. The association undertakes to reimburse the city a 150 euro fee and 1 100 euros in legal costs. The court ordered a further 150 euros in fees refunded to the city from the budget after entry into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Terminate the proceedings in the case.
First instance