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 2-23-8817Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 27 korteriühistu · 80025238

Parking and groundsAllocation of parking spacesBarriers, permits and accessUse of shared landParking chargesApartment association meetings and decisionsVoting and representation

How it started · editorial summary

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.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-23-8817/10Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kangelaste prospekt 27: decisions on parking restrictions declared void

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 27 korteriühistu · AS Ühisteenused · 80025238 ·

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant XX – owner; interested person – Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 27 korteriühistu; applicant’s representative XX; association representative XX; AS Ühisteenused – operator named in the meeting decision

How it started · editorial summary

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 dispute and the court’s decision

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.

Outcome of this decision

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.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
4. Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 27 korteriühistu shall bear all litigation costs.
First instance
Case 2-21-9037Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 16 korteriühistu · 80061872

Damage and insuranceCause and proof of damageParking and groundsUse of shared land

How it started · editorial summary

The car damage was accepted, but the court found no fault by the association in installing the warning post. The damages claim was dismissed.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-21-9037/19Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Võidu prospekt 16: court refused compensation after a collision with a warning post

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 16 korteriühistu · 80061872

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant XX – driver; defendant – Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 16 korteriühistu; parties’ representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

The car damage was accepted, but the court found no fault by the association in installing the warning post. The damages claim was dismissed.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court dismissed driver XX’s claim against the apartment association Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 16 for damage after striking a warning post in the courtyard. It accepted the car damage and its link to the collision but found that the association had exercised the required care. The claimant sought the 190-euro insurance excess, the part of repairs paid by the owner, plus accrued and continuing late-payment interest. XX alleged that the metal post installed beside a collapsed section of surfacing was hard to see and did not meet warning-sign requirements. The association objected that the post warned of a dangerous spot, had reflective strips and was visible in advance. The court considered the association’s liability as manager of the shared grounds. It separately examined property damage, causation, unlawfulness and fault. The fact that the post damaged the car did not complete that examination. From the photographs, the court considered the post sufficiently tall and visibly marked with reflective tape. A driver proceeding carefully through the courtyard could have seen it and stopped. In this case, the court considered that the rules cited by the claimant did not require a standard warning sign at that location. It found the association’s conduct consistent with expected care and did not establish the fault required for recovery. The court also refused to obtain courtyard video footage: the collision was undisputed, footage would not show visibility from inside the car and the association stated it no longer existed. The judgment of 4 March 2022 dismissed the entire claim and imposed costs on the claimant, with separate quantification. The court did not deny the car damage; refusal concerns the conditions for the association’s liability.

Outcome of this decision

Refuse to obtain the video recording and dismiss XX’s damages claim against the association in full. The claimant bears costs, to be quantified separately after the judgment becomes final.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Dismiss XX’s claim against Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 16 korteriühistu for damages in full.
First instance
Case 2-17-16823Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu · 80183301

Parking and groundsUse of shared landConstruction of parking facilitiesApartment association meetings and decisionsVoting and representation

How it started · editorial summary

Refusal to declare the parking decision void was upheld; land-use arrangements were not decided separately.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-17-16823/35Read act

Separate act page

Parking on green space: limits of a meeting resolution

Judgment · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu · 80183301

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — XX; Defendant — Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

XX sought nullity of a resolution to arrange parking behind the building. The court refused and stressed that the wording did not itself decide to build a parking area.

The dispute and the court’s decision

XX challenged the 13.04.2016 resolution of Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu to arrange parking on green space behind the building. XX considered it a material change in the shared land’s purpose requiring all owners’ consent. The association regarded resident parking as ordinary use. The court addressed nullity specifically and found no convening defect or other applicable ground. A possible breach of shared-property management rules did not itself make the resolution void. A separate claim for invalidation on other grounds was not determined here. Nor did the court find that the wording already meant construction of a parking area: paving, tree removal or other specific works were not identified. The materials did not prove a material change of purpose. The claim was dismissed and costs imposed on XX, with their amount to be determined separately. The act is not permission for any works and does not allocate individual parking spaces.

Outcome of this decision

The claim to declare the 13.04.2016 resolution void was dismissed. The court did not find that construction had already been approved. XX bears their own and the association’s costs, the latter to be fixed separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Dismiss XX’s claim against Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu to declare the general meeting resolution of 13.04.2016 void.
First instance
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-17-16823/53Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Kerese 6: meeting decision on parking not declared void

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu · 80183301

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and appellant – XX; Defendant – Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

Refusal to declare the parking decision void was upheld; land-use arrangements were not decided separately.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Tartu Ringkonnakohus dismissed XX’s appeal and upheld the refusal to declare the Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu meeting decision of 13 April 2016 void. Nullity would mean no legal effect from adoption; that specific demand was not granted. The meeting decided to organise car parking on the green area behind the building. The claimant considered this construction of a car park involving tree felling and concreting, requiring all owners’ consent. She also relied on the lack of the necessary quorum. The association objected that organising parking was ordinary use of the land around the building and could be decided by majority. The circuit court considered that the wording adopted was not yet a decision to build a car park and substantially alter the intended use of shared property. The claimant had not demonstrated grounds for nullity under the provisions on general meeting decisions. The court also stated that breach of co-owner consent rules does not itself make a meeting decision void. The circuit court nevertheless corrected one first-instance argument. A court may and must check whether a statutory prohibition making the decision void was breached; it cannot confine itself to the label given to the demand. In this case, however, that examination did not change the outcome. The claimant had not brought a demand against the other owners to determine arrangements for use of the shared land, including tree felling. The first-instance costs allocation was upheld, and appeal costs were imposed on the claimant. The county court will quantify them separately. The judgment concerns the specific meeting wording and ground of nullity raised; no separate demand on land-use arrangements was determined here.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss XX’s appeal and leave the Viru Maakohus judgment of 8 June 2018 unchanged. Retain the previous costs allocation; the claimant bears appeal costs, to be quantified by the county court.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Leave the Viru Maakohus judgment of 8 June 2018 unchanged.
Appeal
Case 2-17-1555Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu · 80183301

Parking and groundsConstruction of parking facilitiesUse of shared landBarriers, permits and accessApartment association meetings and decisionsVoting and representationConvening meetings and advance noticeAgenda and minutes

How it started · editorial summary

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.

· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-17-1555/38Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Kerese 6: parking decision not declared void; new demand on appeal left unexamined

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu · 80183301

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and appellant XX – owner; defendant – apartment association; parties’ representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

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 dispute and the court’s decision

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.

Outcome of this decision

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.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Dismiss XX’s appeal in all other respects.
Appeal
Case 2-14-9883Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 4 korteriühistu · 80145451

Parking and groundsUse of shared landDocuments and informationInspection and copies of documentsApartment association meetings and decisions

How it started · editorial summary

The appeal succeeded in part: the provision charging 5 euros per page was declared void, while the general parking rules remained in place.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-9883/28Read act

Separate act page

Shared parking rules and charges for paper copies

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Korteriühistu Kangelaste 4 · 80145451

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: XX — claimant, association member; Association — defendant

How it started · editorial summary

General parking rules differ from allocating individual spaces. The later appeal upheld dismissal concerning parking but declared the 5-euro-per-page copy charge void; reimbursement of reasonable actual costs remains possible.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Korteriühistu Kangelaste 4 (now — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 4 korteriühistu). XX challenged two decisions of Korteriühistu Kangelaste 4: parking rules and a charge of 5 euros per page for paper copies. The court distinguished allocating specific spaces from general rules allowing use of any free space subject to markings and prohibitions, finding this ordinary use of common land. It held that the copy charge did not prevent inspection or electronic access. Later, on 29 January 2016, Tartu Ringkonnakohus declared the 5-euro-per-page copy-charge provision void as unjustifiably high, while upholding dismissal of the challenge to the parking rules. Reasonable actual copying costs may be reimbursable. The 140-euro costs award was set aside; each party bears its own costs in both instances.

Outcome of this decision

Initially, the claim was dismissed and XX was ordered to pay the association 140 euros in costs. On 29 January 2016, Tartu Ringkonnakohus declared the 5-euro-per-page copy-charge provision void while upholding dismissal concerning the parking rules. The 140-euro award was set aside; each party bears its own costs in both instances.

A checked extract in this language is not yet available.

First instance
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-14-9883/49Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Kangelaste 4: copying fee struck down, general parking rules upheld

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ Kangelaste 4 · 80145451

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and appellant – owner XX; Defendant – KÜ Kangelaste 4

How it started · editorial summary

The appeal succeeded in part: the provision charging 5 euros per page was declared void, while the general parking rules remained in place.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Owner XX challenged two items in the association’s general meeting decision of 5 December 2013: parking rules and a fee of 5 euros for each page of a document copy. The first-instance court rejected both claims. The appeal court changed the judgment on copying fees. The parking rules did not allocate specific spaces to owners but laid down general requirements for parking and drivers’ conduct. The court treated them as ordinary management of shared property, for which a majority vote was sufficient. The refusal to invalidate those rules was upheld. The court considered the charge of 5 euros per page unjustifiably high and contrary to good morals: for a request involving many pages, it could impede access to information about the association’s management. It declared the corresponding meeting decision item void, meaning legally invalid. This does not mean that the association must supply every copy free of charge. The court allowed a reasonable per-page fee and a separate one-off fee to cover other copying costs. The previous costs award of 140 euros against XX was set aside; each party was left to bear its own costs at both levels.

Outcome of this decision

Set aside the dismissal of the copying claim and declare item 5 of the meeting decision of 5 December 2013 void. Uphold the rest of the judgment. Each party bears its own costs at both levels.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Allow the appeal in part.
Appeal
Case 2-13-8500Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Korteriühistu XX

Documents and informationInspection and copies of documentsApartment association board and managementAuthority and representationParking and groundsConstruction of parking facilitiesUse of shared land

How it started · editorial summary

The court distinguished general procedures for handling requests from a specific refusal to provide necessary information.

· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-13-8500/72Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Board responses to requests and equal access to information

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Korteriühistu XX ·

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: XX — claimant and appellant, association member; Association XX — defendant

How it started · editorial summary

The court distinguished general procedures for handling requests from a specific refusal to provide necessary information.

The dispute and the court’s decision

XX challenged association XX’s decisions on parking and handling requests. Following remittal from the Supreme Court, Tartu Ringkonnakohus reconsidered only the requests provision; the parking issue had already been resolved. The court stressed members’ equal entitlement to necessary information and assessment of each request on its substance. The board nevertheless need not provide a written response to every communication unrelated to legitimate management interests. Here, documents had been supplied, maintenance questions explained at a meeting, and authorising the chair to respond alone did not infringe the member’s rights.

Outcome of this decision

The appeal was dismissed. The ultimate rejection of the claim was upheld on revised legal grounds. This does not authorise arbitrary denial of information: an unjustified refusal in a specific instance may be challenged. XX bears the first-instance and appellate costs.

A checked extract in this language is not yet available.

Appeal