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 2-25-17676Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Juuli tn 7 korteriühistu · 80145988

Damage and insuranceInsurance payment and insurer’s claimApartment association bills, payments and debtsPayment accounting and set-off

How it started · editorial summary

Claimant XX disputed an obligation to ERGO; the association was the second defendant. The settlement redirects the insurance demand to the association and sets costs.

· Ruling (kohtumäärus) approving a settlementViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-25-17676/28Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Juuli tn 7 and ERGO: settlement waiving recourse against claimant and arranging accounts with association

Ruling (kohtumäärus) approving a settlement · Viru Maakohus · First instance

ERGO Insurance SE · Narva linn, Juuli tn 7 korteriühistu · 10017013 · 80145988

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant XX – negative declaratory claim; defendant – ERGO Insurance SE; defendant – apartment association; claimant’s and defendants’ representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

Claimant XX disputed an obligation to ERGO; the association was the second defendant. The settlement redirects the insurance demand to the association and sets costs.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Claimant XX sought a declaration against ERGO Insurance SE and the apartment association Narva linn, Juuli tn 7 that no duty existed to pay the insurer’s recourse demand, a claim for monetary reimbursement. Both legal persons were defendants. The account of the initial claim contains no separate monetary demand by the association against the claimant. At the hearing, the participants settled. ERGO waives recourse against claimant XX and directs a demand concerning the same insured event to the association. The association admits liability within the agreement. The insurer performs the agreed set-off under the association’s insurance contract without applying the 300-euro excess, the association’s contractual share of damage cover. The ruling gives no specific principal insurance compensation amount. Claimant XX waives the claim against both defendants. Under the agreement, the claimant and insurer must each separately reimburse the association 110,40 euros in costs. Participants retain their other costs. These are two separate costs payments to the association, rather than damages paid to the claimant. The court found the terms permissible and enforceable, approved the settlement on 31 August 2026 and terminated proceedings. Half the court fee, 210 euros out of 420 euros paid, is refunded to claimant XX, rather than the association. By agreement, the period to appeal the ruling was reduced to three working days. The association’s admission of liability is agreed by the settlement participants; it is not a judicial finding of proved fault on every circumstance of the insured event. Performance of the mutual accounting arrangements is not confirmed.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the settlement: ERGO waives recourse against claimant XX, directs the demand to the association and performs an insurance set-off without the 300-euro excess; the association admits liability. The claimant waives the claim. The claimant and ERGO each reimburse the association 110,40 euros; other costs remain with the participants. Terminate proceedings; refund claimant XX 210 euros, half the fee.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1.1. ERGO Insurance SE waives its recourse claim of 8 July 2025 against XX. […] 1.3. XX waives the claim against ERGO Insurance SE and Narva linn, Juuli tn 7 korteriühistu. […] 2. Terminate proceedings in civil case No. 2-25-17676.
First instance
Case 2-25-19185Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Madise tn 6 korteriühistu · 80551777

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayBills and justification of chargesPayment accounting and set-offHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesWater and sewerageCalculation of water charges

How it started · editorial summary

The owner’s silence did not replace review of invoice grounds, payments and late-payment interest.

· Court orderViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-25-19185/6Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Madise tn 6: review of charges and partial recovery

Court order · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Madise tn 6 korteriühistu · 80551777

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, Madise tn 6 korteriühistu; person concerned — owner XX

How it started · editorial summary

The owner’s silence did not replace review of invoice grounds, payments and late-payment interest.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Madise tn 6 korteriühistu claimed management charges and late-payment interest from owner XX. The owner received the documents but did not respond. In non-contentious proceedings, the court independently examined the basis and amount: issuing invoices alone is insufficient. It established meeting resolutions setting rates, a valid management plan and supplier costs. Heating was allocated by floor area, water and gas by readings and supplier prices. A late increase for a new period was left unexamined because it followed the deadline and would require a fresh opportunity to respond. A separate application for the new period remains possible. The court checked allocation of two payments: without selection of a particular obligation, the statutory sequence applied, first costs and late-payment interest, then principal. Late-payment interest was checked using the exact statutory annual rate rather than the association’s rounded daily rates. Principal recovery was limited to the amount claimed although the calculated balance was higher. The original late-payment interest claim was partly refused; the remaining accrued late-payment interest and further statutory late-payment interest on unpaid principal from 22 August 2026 until payment were awarded. Costs were reduced from the 800 euros sought to 560 euros: a 50-euro fee and 510 euros for legal assistance. The late increase and some representative time were not reimbursed. The order does not establish performance of the award.

Outcome of this decision

The application was allowed in part; debt and late-payment interest were awarded and costs reduced. The late increase for a new period was left unexamined.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Allow in part the application of Narva linn, Madise tn 6 korteriühistu dated 12.11.2025.
First instance
Case 2-25-9102Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Madise tn 6 korteriühistu · 80551777

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

How it started · editorial summary

Payment after filing did not eliminate costs, but the court reduced their amount.

· Court orderViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-25-9102/8Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Madise tn 6: payment of debt and partial reimbursement of costs

Court order · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Madise tn 6 korteriühistu · 80551777

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, Madise tn 6 korteriühistu; person concerned — owner XX

How it started · editorial summary

Payment after filing did not eliminate costs, but the court reduced their amount.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Madise tn 6 korteriühistu claimed management-charge arrears from owner XX. During proceedings, the association confirmed payment of the principal claim and withdrew its application. The owner disputed the need for proceedings and the costs claimed. The court accepted the withdrawal and discontinued proceedings. Costs were placed on the owner because the debt existed when the application was filed and was paid later, making the proceedings objectively justified. The principal debt was not awarded again. Of the 350 euros claimed in costs, the court awarded 100 euros: a 50-euro state fee and 50 euros for necessary work by the contractual representative. It refused 250 euros for preparing the original application because a board member represented the association then and the contractual representative joined later. Statutory interest runs on the awarded costs from finality of the order until payment; performance was not established.

Outcome of this decision

Following payment of principal, proceedings were discontinued; only 100 euros in costs and statutory interest on them were awarded.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Discontinue proceedings in civil case No 2-25-9102.
First instance
Case 2-20-144847Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 11 korteriühistu · 80545179

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsPayment accounting and set-offLate-payment interest and consequences of delayWater and sewerageCalculation of water chargesBills and justification of chargesMeters and readings

How it started · editorial summary

Water readings in the handover record changed part of the award, but a payment on earlier debt did not reduce this claim.

· Court orderViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-20-144847/25Read act

Separate act page

A company’s debt to an association and withdrawal of late-payment interest claim

Court order · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 11 korteriühistu · OÜ Peremaakler · 80545179 · 11523072

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 11 korteriühistu; Person concerned — OÜ Peremaakler

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought management and utility charges from OÜ Peremaakler. The appeal court later reduced the principal; the late-payment interest proceedings were discontinued following the association’s withdrawal.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 11 korteriühistu sought management, heating and water charges from OÜ Peremaakler for 01.02.2020–07.10.2021. Following the company’s objection, the dispute continued outside expedited payment-order proceedings. The final claim was 1,147.44 euros. The association withdrew its claim for late-payment interest. The company disputed water charges on the ground of no consumption and raised the treatment of proceeds from the property’s sale. The first-instance court checked invoices, readings, handover records and approved tariffs. It found that the company had provided no specific alternative calculation, while the association had proved the composition and allocation of costs. It found that 350 euros obtained in enforcement had been applied to an earlier debt awarded in another case, rather than the period at issue here. The first-instance court awarded the principal and discontinued the withdrawn late-payment interest claim. On 29 January 2026, Tartu Ringkonnakohus reduced the award to 1,117.62 euros: water charges of 29.82 euros did not match the handover-record readings. Crediting 350 euros against the earlier debt was left unchanged. Costs in both instances were allocated 97% to OÜ Peremaakler and 3% to the association, with the amount to be determined separately. Discontinuance of the withdrawn late-payment interest claim remained unchanged.

Outcome of this decision

The original award was 1,147.44 euros. On 29 January 2026, Tartu Ringkonnakohus reduced it to 1,117.62 euros and dismissed the claim for 29.82 euros. The withdrawn late-payment interest claim was discontinued. Costs in both instances were allocated 97% to the company and 3% to the association, with the amount to be fixed separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Accept the withdrawal by Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 11 korteriühistu of the claim for late-payment interest on the principal debt for 01 February 2020 to 07 October 2021 and discontinue the proceedings in respect of that claim.
First instance
· Court orderTartu Ringkonnakohtu tsiviilkolleegium · Appeal · № 2-20-144847/38Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Pähklimäe tn 11: water-charge correction on OÜ Peremaakler’s appeal

Court order · Tartu Ringkonnakohtu tsiviilkolleegium · Appeal

Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 11 korteriühistu · OÜ Peremaakler · 80545179 · 11523072

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 11 korteriühistu; person concerned and appellant against the order — OÜ Peremaakler; applicant representative — XX; company representatives — XX

How it started · editorial summary

Water readings in the handover record changed part of the award, but a payment on earlier debt did not reduce this claim.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 11 korteriühistu sought 1147.44 euros in management charges from OÜ Peremaakler for 1 February 2020 until ownership ended on 7 October 2021; the association withdrew late-payment interest. The company disputed water charges and allocation of a 350-euro receipt. It appealed the order after the first-instance court allowed the principal in full. The appellate court admitted additional documents permissible in support of such an appeal. Final water readings in the handover record were lower than those used in the invoices. The excess 29.82 euros was therefore refused, leaving an award of 1117.62 euros. The court upheld the other charges. The 350-euro receipt discharged an earlier obligation established by another court order; the balance of that debt was not the balance claimed here. Discontinuance of the late-payment interest claim remained in force. Costs in both instances were allocated 97% to OÜ Peremaakler and 3% to the association. The first-instance court will quantify costs after the order becomes final. Performance of the award was not established.

Outcome of this decision

The appeal against the order was allowed in part: the award was reduced to 1117.62 euros and 29.82 euros refused; costs were reallocated.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
4.2. Allow the application in part.
Appeal
Case 2-25-117421Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 5 korteriühistu · 80180523

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsInstalments and payment schedulesPayment accounting and set-off

How it started · editorial summary

The settlement provides for instalments and applies only payments exceeding current undisputed bills to the old debt.

· Order approving a settlementViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-25-117421/3Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

A. Puškini tn 5: instalments and allocation of current payments

Order approving a settlement · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 5 korteriühistu · 80180523

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 5 korteriühistu; Debtor — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The settlement provides for instalments and applies only payments exceeding current undisputed bills to the old debt.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 5 korteriühistu brought a claim against XX in payment-order proceedings. The participants agreed on the debt and payment, submitted a settlement and requested termination. Following transfer from Pärnu Maakohus, Viru Maakohus approved it on 27 August 2025. XX acknowledged the principal and undertook to reimburse 45 euros in association costs: 25 euros in state fees and 20 euros in other procedural costs. The association waived other claims. There are 33 monthly payments with seasonal amounts: higher from May to October and lower from November to April, with a separate final amount. Early payment is permitted. Performance of the schedule is not established. Current undisputed bills must be paid in addition: only the excess above them counts toward the old debt under the settlement. Full or partial delay in an instalment makes the entire unpaid balance enforceable. After performance, no mutual claims remain in the case. The court found the settlement permissible and enforceable and ended proceedings. Each participant bears other costs. The agreed appeal period was shortened to two days from service.

Outcome of this decision

Approve monthly payment of the principal and 45 euros in costs. Current undisputed bills remain separately payable; only the excess is applied to old debt. Full or partial delay makes the entire unpaid balance enforceable. End proceedings; participants bear other costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1.5. If instalments specified in clause 1.2 are delayed, including in part, the entire unpaid debt is recoverable in enforcement proceedings (compulsory enforcement). […] 2. End the proceedings in civil case no. 2-25-117421.
First instance
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 2-25-112830Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Rakvere tn 20, Rakvere tn 20a, Rakvere tn 20b, Rakvere tn 20c korteriühistu · 80180335

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsInstalments and payment schedulesPayment accounting and set-offLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

How it started · editorial summary

The association and XX agreed on instalments, priority allocation of payments and the consequences of delay.

· Order approving a settlement and ending proceedingsViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-25-112830/3Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Rakvere tn 20 and associated buildings: allocation of instalment payments

Order approving a settlement and ending proceedings · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Rakvere tn 20, Rakvere tn 20a, Rakvere tn 20b, Rakvere tn 20c korteriühistu · 80180335

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, Rakvere tn 20, Rakvere tn 20a, Rakvere tn 20b, Rakvere tn 20c korteriühistu; Debtor — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association and XX agreed on instalments, priority allocation of payments and the consequences of delay.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Rakvere tn 20, Rakvere tn 20a, Rakvere tn 20b, Rakvere tn 20c korteriühistu sought a debt from XX. After service of a payment proposal, the participants agreed on the obligation and instalment terms. The case was transferred to Viru Maakohus, which approved the settlement and ended proceedings without deciding the original dispute on its merits. The acknowledged obligation includes utility and management arrears, late-payment interest and association costs. Monthly instalments and a separate final payment are required. Current bills are payable in addition. If a transfer cannot cover both the current bill and the instalment, it is applied to the settlement first. Current bills remain payable. A delay exceeding 15 days permits recovery of the entire unpaid balance through enforcement. Those 15 days also constitute the additional period for performance; no further period is required. Participants bear other costs themselves. They waived appeal; the order’s entry into force is linked to service. Performance of the schedule is not established.

Outcome of this decision

Approve instalments and end the proceedings. Current bills remain payable separately; an insufficient transfer is applied to the settlement first. A delay exceeding 15 days permits recovery of the whole balance; those days already constitute the additional performance period. Each participant bears other costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. End the proceedings in civil case no. 2-25-112830. […] 3. The parties’ litigation costs have been determined in the settlement. Other litigation costs incurred by the parties remain for each to bear.
First instance
Case 2-22-10057Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Madise tn 1, Madise tn 3, Malmi tn 3, Malmi tn 5 korteriühistu · 80152178

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesPayment accounting and set-off

How it started · editorial summary

Owner XX challenged the association’s legal charges. The association admitted a 510-euro error, but disputes over other amounts and the present proceedings’ costs continued.

· Order on an application to establish absence of debtViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-22-10057/7Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Madise tn 1 and other buildings: erroneous legal charges on a bill

Order on an application to establish absence of debt · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Madise tn 1, Madise tn 3, Malmi tn 3, Malmi tn 5 korteriühistu · 80152178

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant, owner seeking a declaration of no debt — XX; Person concerned — Narva linn, Madise tn 1, Madise tn 3, Malmi tn 3, Malmi tn 5 korteriühistu; Applicant’s representative — XX; Association’s representative — XX

How it started · editorial summary

Owner XX challenged the association’s legal charges. The association admitted a 510-euro error, but disputes over other amounts and the present proceedings’ costs continued.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Applicant XX sought a declaration of no debt to Narva linn, Madise tn 1, Madise tn 3, Malmi tn 3, Malmi tn 5 korteriühistu. The dispute concerned legal costs and related charges, later other accounting dates and an alleged overpayment. The association admitted an erroneous 510-euro charge and corrected it but disputed the rest and considered litigation unnecessary. The court did not end the case merely because the final submissions reported no current debt. It distinguished whether charges were originally justified from later payment and examined the negative declaration claim. Of the 510 euros, 30 exceeded costs already awarded by a court and 480 related to another pending case. No obligation arose to pay these erroneous charges. Costs awarded by earlier rulings were different: the obligation originally existed and was subsequently performed. The court saw no basis for a separate declaration of its absence in the form requested. Further objections concerning the balance and overpayment were unproved after examination of the particular bill. On 28 February 2025, the application was partly allowed: the June notice showed no valid obligation for 510 euros as at 30 June 2022. This did not declare the absence of every obligation in later periods or award money against the association. Each participant bears its own costs, with no reimbursement.

Outcome of this decision

Allow the application in part: declare no debt for the 510-euro portion shown in the June notice as at 30 June 2022. Each participant bears its own costs, with no mutual reimbursement.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Allow XX’s application in part.
First instance
Case 2-24-8672Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Energia tn 3 korteriühistu · 80189425

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeQuorum and repeat meetingsAgenda and minutesBudget, management plan and ratesApartment association bills, payments and debtsPayment accounting and set-off

How it started · editorial summary

Owner XX sought nullity or invalidation of parts of the repeat-meeting decisions; a general defect in notice of decision-making authority proved decisive.

· Ruling (kohtumäärus), non-contentious proceedingsViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-24-8672/8Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Energia tn 3: all repeat-meeting decisions declared void because of deficient notice

Ruling (kohtumäärus), non-contentious proceedings · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Energia tn 3 korteriühistu · 80189425

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant XX – owner challenging the decisions; interested person – Narva linn, Energia tn 3 korteriühistu; association representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

Owner XX sought nullity or invalidation of parts of the repeat-meeting decisions; a general defect in notice of decision-making authority proved decisive.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Applicant XX challenged certain decisions of the apartment association Narva linn, Energia tn 3 repeat meeting of 10 April 2024. The dispute concerned the management report, rates and additional provisions on payment accounting and removal of concessions. XX alleged that some matters were absent from the agenda, the decisions were unfair and rights were infringed. The association relied on XX’s attendance, the current articles and customary repeat-meeting practice. The court found a substantial general convening defect: the invitation did not state that the repeat meeting could decide matters regardless of attendance. The association admitted the missing sentence but argued that members already knew the rule from law, the articles and practice. The court rejected this: the specific warning allows a person to assess the need to attend, so knowledge of the general rule and routine practice do not replace it. The court also found that the stated agenda items did not allow participants to expect decisions on the applicant’s specific old obligation or removal of concessions. Those provisions would have had no legal effect from adoption on that independent ground too. The applicant did not prove a conflict with good morals; the court did not separately decide invalidation because it had already found nullity. The ruling of 26 February 2025 granted the application, declaring all repeat-meeting decisions void, rather than only the items initially identified. Costs were imposed on the association and applicant XX was awarded the 50-euro fee paid. The ruling sets no new concessionary rate and does not decide a separate dispute over the amount of old arrears.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the application. Declare all decisions of the association’s repeat meeting of 10.04.2024 void. Impose all costs on the association and award applicant XX reimbursement of the 50-euro fee.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Declare it established that all decisions of the repeat general meeting of apartment owners of Narva linn, Energia tn 3 korteriühistu of 10 April 2024 are void.
First instance
Case 2-24-142703Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 21 korteriühistu · 80228958

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayInstalments and payment schedulesPayment accounting and set-off

How it started · editorial summary

Two persons XX agreed on instalments and payment allocation.

· Court orderViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-24-142703/8Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Instalments and allocation of insufficient payments

Court order · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 21 korteriühistu · 80228958

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 21 korteriühistu; two persons concerned XX — joint and several debtors

How it started · editorial summary

Two persons XX agreed on instalments and payment allocation.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court approved a settlement between Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 21 korteriühistu and two persons XX for joint and several payment of utility and management charges, interest and costs. The unpaid balance may be claimed from either debtor without double recovery. Proceedings were terminated. Ten equal monthly instalments are due by the last day of each month. The association reported that the first two had been paid; this does not establish full performance. Current bills must be paid separately. If a payment cannot cover both the instalment and the current bill, it is allocated to the settlement. An instalment overdue by more than 15 days permits immediate enforcement of the unpaid balance. Other costs remain with each participant. The participants excluded an appeal.

Outcome of this decision

Approve joint and several instalments and terminate proceedings; insufficient payments go towards the settlement, and a delay over 15 days permits recovery of the balance.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Terminate proceedings in civil case no. 2-24-142703.
First instance
Case 2-24-147402Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kosmonaudi tn 3 korteriühistu · 80162834

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsInstalments and payment schedulesPayment accounting and set-offLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

How it started · editorial summary

XX and the association agreed on instalments with priority for current bills.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-24-147402/3Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Instalments and payments exceeding current bills

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kosmonaudi tn 3 korteriühistu · 80162834

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, Kosmonaudi tn 3 korteriühistu; person concerned XX — debtor

How it started · editorial summary

XX and the association agreed on instalments with priority for current bills.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court approved a settlement between Narva linn, Kosmonaudi tn 3 korteriühistu and owner XX covering acknowledged utility and management-charge debt and late-payment interest, and terminated proceedings. Costs are 208 euros: a 25-euro state fee and 183 euros in legal costs. The association waived other claims. Twenty months of varying instalments and early payment were agreed. Current undisputed bills must be paid separately; only the excess counts towards the settlement. Any full or partial delay in an instalment permits enforcement of the whole unpaid balance. Performance extinguishes mutual claims in this case. Other costs remain with each participant. The appeal period was reduced to two days after service. Performance is not established.

Outcome of this decision

Settlement approved and proceedings terminated; only amounts exceeding current bills go towards the existing debt.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Terminate proceedings in civil case no. 2-24-147402.
First instance
Case 2-22-17238Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 4 korteriühistu · 80339391

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsPayment accounting and set-offLate-payment interest and consequences of delayWater and sewerageCalculation of water chargesRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairs

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought management and utility debts with late-payment interest. XX disputed the calculation and crediting of payments. The court granted only part of the claim, excluding unproved water charges.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-17238/22Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Partial debt award: accounting for payments and proving water charges

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 4 korteriühistu · 80339391

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 4 korteriühistu; Person concerned — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought management and utility debts with late-payment interest. XX disputed the calculation and crediting of payments. The court granted only part of the claim, excluding unproved water charges.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 4 korteriühistu sought unpaid management and utility charges and late-payment interest. XX challenged the calculation, alleged that payments had not been credited, and refused some maintenance and repair-fund charges without explanations of tariffs and evidence of work. The association repeatedly reduced its claim and acknowledged that some earlier payments had not been accounted for. The court examined invoices, bank records, tariff resolutions and supplier calculations. It rejected unilateral exclusion of maintenance and repair-fund contributions: they concerned the upkeep of the shared building, rather than only services actually used in a particular month. A separate entrance did not itself remove liability for common expenses. Differences between individual invoices were not considered sufficient proof of forgery. However, the court found the build-up of debt and allocation of payments difficult to follow. Part of the claim was proved, but some water charges lacked the necessary price information, supplier invoices, readings and calculation. The court excluded that part and granted the application in part. It awarded proved principal, accrued late-payment interest and continuing statutory late-payment interest from 17 November 2022 until the awarded principal is paid. Procedural costs were divided equally, with the amount to be determined separately.

Outcome of this decision

The application was granted in part: proved principal and late-payment interest were awarded, including continuing late-payment interest from 17 November 2022 until the awarded principal is paid. Unproved water charges were excluded. Each participant must bear 50% of the other’s costs; their amount will be determined separately after the order becomes final.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Grant the application of Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 4 korteriühistu in part.
First instance