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 2-24-101553Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Energia tn 3 korteriühistu · 80189425

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesPayment accounting and set-offLimitation of claimsApartment association meetings and decisionsBudget, management plan and ratesApartment association board and managementAuthority and representationLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

How it started · editorial summary

XX challenged the service rate for non-residential premises and relied on limitation; the association sought payment under general-meeting resolutions.

· Court order in non-contentious proceedingsViru Maakohus Jõhvi kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-24-101553/29Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Energia tn 3: rates, allocation of payments and limitation

Court order in non-contentious proceedings · Viru Maakohus Jõhvi kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Energia tn 3 korteriühistu · 80189425

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, Energia tn 3 korteriühistu; Person concerned, owner — XX

How it started · editorial summary

XX challenged the service rate for non-residential premises and relied on limitation; the association sought payment under general-meeting resolutions.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Energia tn 3 korteriühistu sought management-cost arrears and late-payment interest from XX concerning non-residential premises. The association relied on general-meeting resolutions and argued that partial payment restarted limitation for the old debt. XX challenged the rate, relied on an individual arrangement with the board and pleaded partial limitation. The court found that ordinary payments specified particular months, so they could not arbitrarily be allocated to older debt. A separate payment marked “debt” discharged earlier obligations but did not acknowledge the whole balance. Unpaid 2020 charges were time-barred when proceedings began in January 2024. Other rate objections failed on the meeting records. The board could not set an individual rate contrary to the general resolution. The order cited the appellate court’s view that rates differing solely by natural- or legal-person status could make a resolution void. This operative part did not itself annul the rate resolution. The application was partly allowed: principal, accrued and further statutory late-payment interest until payment were awarded. XX bears 73% of association costs; clause5 awards 1283.12* euros. Statutory late-payment interest on costs also runs from entry into force. Actual payment is not established.

Outcome of this decision

Allow the application in part: award principal, accrued and further statutory late-payment interest until payment. XX bears 73% of association costs; clause5 awards 1283.12* euros. Statutory late-payment interest on costs also runs from entry into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Allow the application of Narva linn, Energia tn 3 korteriühistu in part.
First instance
Case 2-20-5099Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 2 korteriühistu · 80158614

Damage and insuranceLeaks and floodingInsurance payment and insurer’s claimWater and seweragePipes, risers and sewerageApartment association bills, payments and debtsLimitation of claims

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer sought compensation for 2014 damage from owner XX or alternatively from the Pähklimäe tn 2 association; both pleaded limitation.

· Court orderViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-20-5099/30Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Pähklimäe tn 2: limitation of an insurer’s claim after water damage

Court order · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ · AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ Eesti filiaal · Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 2 korteriühistu · 110051834 · 12831829 · 80158614

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ through its Estonian branch; Person concerned, owner — XX; Person concerned — Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 2 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer sought compensation for 2014 damage from owner XX or alternatively from the Pähklimäe tn 2 association; both pleaded limitation.

The dispute and the court’s decision

AB „Lietuvos draudimas“, acting through its Estonian branch, sought reimbursement of an insurance payment from owner XX or alternatively from Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 2 korteriühistu. The claim concerned water damage on 12 January 2014 and a broken inlet valve that the insurer considered common property. Statutory late-payment interest from 31 January 2023 and costs were also sought. Both respondents pleaded limitation and disputed responsibility. The insurer argued that payment transferred the injured owner’s statutory claim, subject to a ten-year period. The owner also relied on preventive measures taken, while the association denied breaching its duties. The court agreed that the claim did not arise from the insurance contract. However, transfer preserved the injured owner’s legal position in relation to the association. The court treated those relations as analogous to transactions and applied a three-year, rather than ten-year, limitation period. It linked commencement to payment on 30 January 2014, expiry to 30 January 2017 and filing to 3 April 2020. The application against both respondents was therefore dismissed. The court also discussed conditions for compensation involving common property, but limitation was the decisive ground. The insurer bears costs; their amount is to be determined separately after entry into force of the principal ruling.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss the application against owner XX and the Pähklimäe tn 2 association. Order AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ to bear costs, to be quantified separately after the principal ruling enters into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Dismiss the application of AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ Eesti filiaal against XX and Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 2 korteriühistu for compensation for damage.
First instance
Case 2-16-16599Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu · 80189721

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

How it started · editorial summary

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

Related prepared acts from this case are also shown.

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

Separate act page

Stairwell and heating charges: judgment reversed and case remitted

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

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

Entry into force has not been reverified

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

How it started · editorial summary

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

The dispute and the court’s decision

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

Outcome of this decision

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

Separate act page

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

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

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

Entry into force has not been reverified

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

How it started · editorial summary

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

The dispute and the court’s decision

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

Outcome of this decision

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

Separate act page

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

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

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

Entry into force has not been reverified

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

How it started · editorial summary

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

The dispute and the court’s decision

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

Outcome of this decision

Grant Brainella’s claim in full: no lease relationship or rent payment duty exists; heating for the stated period is calculated on 88,4 m²; no debt of 285,63 euros is owed. The association bears costs at both levels, to be quantified separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2.1. Grant the claim by osaühing Brainella against Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 12 korteriühistu.
Appeal
Case 2-16-109666Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Juuli tn 7 korteriühistu · 80145988

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayLimitation of claimsWater and sewerageMeters and readingsCalculation of water charges

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought additional water debt of a former owner from the purchaser after auction. The court refused recovery on good-faith grounds and inadequate proof of the calculation; it did not establish limitation.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-109666/60Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Old water debt discovered after auction: claim against the purchaser dismissed

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, 26. juuli tn 7 korteriühistu · 80145988

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — Narva linn, 26. juuli tn 7 korteriühistu; Defendant, purchaser of the property — XX; Third party supporting the defendant, former owner — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought additional water debt of a former owner from the purchaser after auction. The court refused recovery on good-faith grounds and inadequate proof of the calculation; it did not establish limitation.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, 26. juuli tn 7 korteriühistu, formerly KORTERIÜHISTU 26. JUULI 7 NARVA, sought a former owner’s debt and late-payment interest from purchaser XX. A meter check after the auction revealed differences from previously reported water readings. The purchaser objected that the debt disclosed at purchase had been paid and that the association had not notified the bailiff of the additional claim beforehand. Applying the law in force when the obligations arose, the court accepted the good-faith objection. It found that the association had not properly checked the data over a prolonged period or explained why the extra debt was not identified before sale. On these facts, later claiming it from this purchaser was inconsistent conduct. The documents also did not allow verification of monthly charges, payments and late-payment interest. The court could not therefore establish when obligations became due or decide the limitation defence. Dismissal was not based on a finding that the whole claim was time-barred. Debt and late-payment interest were refused. The association must bear its own, the defendant’s and the third party’s costs, with amounts determined separately.

Outcome of this decision

The additional debt and late-payment interest claim was dismissed. The court found recovery from this purchaser contrary to good faith and the calculation insufficiently proved; limitation was not established. The association bears participants’ costs as ordered, with their amount fixed separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Dismiss the debt claim brought by Narva linn, 26. juuli tn 7 korteriühistu (former name: KORTERIÜHISTU 26. JUULI 7 NARVA) against XX.
First instance
Case 2-16-16692Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 25, Tallinna mnt 27 korteriühistu · 80162159

Water and sewerageMeters and readingsCalculation of water chargesApartment association bills, payments and debtsBills and justification of chargesLate-payment interest and consequences of delayPayment accounting and set-offLimitation of claims

How it started · editorial summary

The owner challenged 53,16 euros as interest, but the court found that interest paid and instead identified a principal balance resulting from the order in which payments were applied.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-16692/16Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 25/27: owner’s requests for a finding of no debt and limitation rejected

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Tallinna mnt 25/27 · 80162159

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — owner XX; Defendant — KÜ Tallinna mnt 25/27

How it started · editorial summary

The owner challenged 53,16 euros as interest, but the court found that interest paid and instead identified a principal balance resulting from the order in which payments were applied.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court dismissed XX’s claim against KÜ Tallinna mnt 25/27: it did not declare that the 53,16 euro debt was absent or grant the alternative request to establish expiry of limitation. This decides the owner’s claim; it is not a new monetary award to the association. The dispute began with cold water charges. The owner believed payment should follow the readings after a verified meter was installed. The association continued charging under the earlier standard and agreed to recalculate in May 2012. XX considered that there was then no basis for interest; the limitation period for old claims had also expired. The association objected that the owner continued reducing various invoices unilaterally after recalculation. Payments were applied first to accrued late-payment interest and then to principal. The balance therefore extended beyond the earlier water dispute. The court examined invoices and a summary calculation and agreed with the association. The owner had not challenged the meeting decision on standard water charges, which remained binding until amended. Unilaterally reducing invoices caused payment delays for which the association could seek interest. The court also found it lawful to apply payments first to interest and then to principal. It concluded that the disputed interest had already been paid in that way, while 53,16 euros in maintenance costs remained unpaid. It rejected the argument that refusing to pay interest allowed the owner to change this order. It also found no justification for reducing or refunding interest already paid. The limitation request was rejected: the court proceeded from the relevant earlier obligations having already been performed through payments, making limitation inapplicable to them. Costs were allocated to XX; their amount will be determined separately after the judgment enters into force.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss XX’s request for a declaration of no debt and the alternative limitation request. Leave the claimant’s own costs and the association’s costs to the claimant; their amount will be determined separately after entry into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
5. The court shall determine the monetary amount of procedural costs by a separate ruling after the judgment enters into force.
First instance
Case 2-15-105517Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 10 korteriühistu · 80183397

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayBills and justification of chargesPayment accounting and set-offLimitation of claimsObligations of multiple owners

How it started · editorial summary

The court examined limitation and the association’s calculations and dismissed the claim: the older part was time-barred, and the tables did not show debt for the rest.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-105517/55Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Võidu 10: claim dismissed because older demands were time-barred and calculations showed no debt

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Võidu 10 · 80183397

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — KÜ Võidu 10; Two defendants XX; Participants’ representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

The court examined limitation and the association’s calculations and dismissed the claim: the older part was time-barred, and the tables did not show debt for the rest.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court dismissed the apartment association Võidu 10’s debt and late-payment interest claim against two defendants XX. Limitation was applied to the older part of the claims; for the later period, the court found no debt on the dates examined according to the association’s tables. The association revised its calculation several times. One defendant argued that the principal had been paid, some claims were brought after limitation had expired, and payments exceeded charges during the remaining period. The second submitted no substantive response. The association submitted tables, but not the invoices themselves or information allowing the court to establish who made particular payments and when. The court found that claims for 1 May 2009 to 31 December 2011 had become time-barred before the application was filed in March 2015. The corresponding interest claims became time-barred together with the principal claim. For the later charges, the court examined payments and concluded that the association’s tables showed no debt either on 31 May 2015 or on 30 June 2016. Interest on this part was also found unjustified. The court stated that performance of a joint and several obligation by one debtor releases the others to the corresponding extent. No refund of an alleged overpayment was awarded to the defendants. The association was left to bear its own costs and ordered to bear the defendants’ costs. It was ordered to pay the state 348,24 euros for state legal aid within three months after the judgment entered into force. Actual payment of costs is not confirmed.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss the association’s claim against the two defendants XX. The association bears the costs; award the state 348,24 euros for legal aid, payable within three months after the judgment enters into force. No refund of overpayment to the defendants was ordered.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
4. Leave the claimant’s procedural costs entirely to the claimant.
First instance
Case 2-15-16874Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 49 korteriühistu · 80180192

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayBills and justification of chargesPayment accounting and set-offLimitation of claims

How it started · editorial summary

The claim against the new owner was partly granted: the oldest claims were excluded by limitation and interest was limited to the period of the buyer’s own delay.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-16874/21Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Puškini 49: apartment buyer ordered to pay part of an earlier debt, with interest substantially limited

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Puškini 49 · OÜ Peremaakler · 80180192 · 11523072

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — KÜ Puškini 49; Defendant — apartment buyer OÜ Peremaakler

How it started · editorial summary

The claim against the new owner was partly granted: the oldest claims were excluded by limitation and interest was limited to the period of the buyer’s own delay.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Puškini 49 brought a claim for earlier utility debt and late-payment interest against OÜ Peremaakler, which had bought an apartment at auction. The court partly granted the claim, awarding 2615,28 euros in principal and 21,10 euros* in interest. Each participant bears its own costs, and the association must also pay the state a further 100 euros in missing fees. The association relied on the auction terms and the buyer’s awareness of the debt. The company disputed the calculations and invoked limitation; when paying, it specified the periods covered. An interim judgment of 19 April 2016 had already applied limitation to claims for 2004–2011. The present judgment concerns the remainder. The court proceeded from the company’s acknowledgement of debt from 2012 onwards and checked the charges and payment evidence for 2012 to February 2016. On reconciliation, it determined a balance of 2615,28 euros, accounting for paid invoices and an overpayment in one month. It did not accept the association’s calculation in full. The court rejected interest for the period before purchase on grounds of good faith: in this case, transfer of the principal obligation did not automatically entail liability for the previous owner’s delay. It calculated interest from 24 March 2015, the date on which it recognised the company as owner, using the invoices and its payment dates. The result was 21,10 euros*. The court determined the fee by adding principal and interest: the association had paid 400 euros instead of the 500 euros considered necessary by the court, so it was ordered to pay a further 100 euros. The act does not confirm actual performance of the awards.

Outcome of this decision

Award the association 2615,28 euros in debt and 21,10 euros* in late-payment interest against OÜ Peremaakler. Each party bears its own costs. The association must pay the state a further 100 euros in fees.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Partly grant KÜ Puškini 49’s claim.
First instance
Case 2-15-17746Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 2 korteriühistu · 80180393

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLimitation of claimsPayment accounting and set-off

How it started · editorial summary

A three-year period applied, but the court held that partial payments interrupted it.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-17746/10Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Narv-Keskring: partial payment and interruption of limitation

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Narv-Keskring · 80180393

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — KÜ Narv-Keskring; defendant — owner XX

How it started · editorial summary

A three-year period applied, but the court held that partial payments interrupted it.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Narv-Keskring (now — Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 2 korteriühistu). KÜ Narv-Keskring claimed management charges from owner XX. Following partial payment during proceedings, the claim was reduced to the unpaid balance. The defendant pleaded limitation in respect of that balance. The court agreed that periodic obligations were subject to a three-year period rather than the ten years proposed by the association. However, the undisputed payment table showed regular partial payments, which the court treated as acknowledgment interrupting limitation. It held the claim timely and awarded the balance and state fee. The objection was examined on its merits, rather than by default. The judgment records earlier partial payment but not performance of the new award.

Outcome of this decision

The limitation defence was rejected because partial payment acknowledged the claim; the balance was awarded.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Allow the claim.
First instance