Narva apartment associations Court decisions

Owner XX obtained nullity of two parking decisions. The court linked the result to specific restrictions on owners’ rights, rather than a ban on all parking control.

The court declared two parking decisions of the apartment association Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 27 without legal effect from adoption. In this case, restrictions affected the owners’ own right to use shared grounds and required their agreement, which was absent. Owner XX challenged approval of parking rules on 30 April 2019 and the decision of 17 April 2023 on enforcement of them. The rules provided one card per apartment, restricted parking without a card and some vehicle types, and allowed termination of the right of use. AS Ühisteenused was chosen to supervise for 30 euros per month, with the ability to demand contractual penalties. The association considered control arrangements ordinary building management approvable by majority. It relied on the applicant using a parking card and not challenging the earlier decision in time. It acknowledged that some restrictions required agreement but proposed retaining the rest. The court explained that an operator contract or card system may in themselves be ordinary management. Here, however, the rules restricted owners as well as outside vehicles: not all received cards, cardless parking was limited to an hour, and extra charges and penalties were provided. The court assessed the combined conditions as a substantial change in use of shared parking for which a meeting majority was insufficient. The 2019 rules were adopted as a single document, so the court did not preserve individual parts. The applicant’s card and earlier voting did not remove nullity. The alternative invalidation demand was not separately considered because the disputed decisions already lacked legal effect from adoption. The ruling of 13 March 2025 declared item 9 of the 2019 meeting decision and item 5 of the 2023 decision void. It awarded 1 071,40 euros in costs against the association with statutory interest after finality. Claimed costs were reduced because some representative time was excessive.

Grant the application. Declare item 9 of the decision of 30.04.2019 approving parking rules and item 5 of the decision of 17.04.2023 organising supervision void. The association bears all costs; award applicant XX 1 071,40 euros and statutory interest on it from finality until performance.

The administrative court returned the complaint: the commission’s documents created no binding rules for outside persons.

Tartu Halduskohus returned the apartment association Võidu 9 Narva’s complaint against city traffic safety commission decisions and a response from Narva Linnavalitsus. It found that the documents were not binding administrative acts and a dispute over use of a private road fell outside administrative court jurisdiction. The association sought annulment of item 5 of the commission decision of 1 August 2017, item 2 of the decision of 7 February 2018 and the city government’s response to an objection of 11 May 2018. It initially also sought restoration of the earlier traffic scheme between Võidu 7 and Võidu 9. It argued that the courtyard road lay on two private plots and the commission had disregarded its rights. The city government objected that the administrative court could not hear such a dispute. The court found that commission minutes had no direct binding effect on outside persons. The city government’s response merely explained that status and therefore was not subject to annulment as an administrative act either. The court considered that private parties’ road use and property access issues should be resolved by agreement or civil litigation. Narva linn did not own the private roads identified or bear responsibility for their upkeep. Returning the complaint did not establish a final traffic arrangement between plots or require the city to restore the earlier scheme.

Return the complaint in the administrative case because the administrative court lacks jurisdiction to resolve this dispute.

Owner XX did not obtain a declaration that the December parking decision was void. The appeal court did not examine the new dispute over the April decision on its merits.

The circuit court upheld the refusal to declare the apartment association Kerese 6 parking decision of 20 December 2016 void. It left the demand concerning a separate decision of 13 April 2016 unexamined because no such demand had been made at first instance. Owner XX challenged approval of the parking project, tree felling and pruning, and installation of road signs. He argued that creating parking on a green area required all owners’ consent, whereas decisions were made by majority. The association objected that parking had already been approved and the December decisions merely organised the works. The appeal court disagreed with that explanation: the April decision was too indefinite to count as a construction decision. It was the December project that specified the future parking area and tree works. This did not, however, justify granting the demand made. The owner sought a declaration of nullity, meaning no legal effect from adoption, rather than an alternative order invalidating an unlawful decision. The court considered that an alleged breach of co-owner consent rules did not itself cause nullity. The materials also did not establish a change in the plot’s intended use substantial enough to require the provision cited by the claimant. The court found no other grounds for nullity, including a proven breach of convening requirements. The court did not allow a separate challenge to the April decision to be added on appeal. Appeal costs were imposed on the claimant; the first-instance court will quantify them separately. The court applied the rules in force when the meeting decisions were adopted in 2016; its findings concern the demand made and those materials.

Uphold the first-instance judgment of 30.08.2017. Leave the appeal concerning nullity of the meeting decision of 13.04.2016 unexamined and dismiss the rest. Claimant XX bears appeal costs, to be quantified separately.