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 2-25-19185Source: 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 2-20-144847Source: 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 2-24-11128Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 10b korteriühistu · 80145534

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesLate-payment interest and consequences of delayHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesWater and sewerageCalculation of water charges

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought a new period’s arrears from former owner XX; no response followed service by public notice.

· Order awarding debtViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-24-11128/11Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kangelaste prospekt 10b: the former owner’s arrears

Order awarding debt · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 10b korteriühistu · 80145534

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 10b korteriühistu; Person concerned, former owner — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought a new period’s arrears from former owner XX; no response followed service by public notice.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 10b korteriühistu sought management and utility costs from former owner XX for a new period. An earlier case covered an earlier period; the present claim did not repeat that award. The association also sought late-payment interest, costs and retention of security for enforcement. Documents were served through official public notice and no response arrived by the deadline. The court decided the application in writing, emphasising its duty to verify legality and evidence despite the lack of objections. Failure to respond was not treated as an independent ground for recovery. The court held that loss of ownership does not release a former owner from obligations arising before transfer. It examined the amount and allocation of charges using register information, the articles, calculations, rates and supplier documents. The charges included maintenance, repair-fund contributions and utilities. The evidence was accepted as sufficient. For late-payment interest, the court stated that the articles alone could not establish a rate above the statutory rate and checked that the claim used the statutory rate. On 4 April 2025, it awarded principal, accrued late-payment interest and further statutory late-payment interest on principal until payment. The earlier security remained in place to enforce the order; it was not an additional monetary award. XX was also ordered to pay 489 euros in costs: two state fees, legal work and evidence. Statutory late-payment interest on costs runs from entry into force. Subsequent payment is not established.

Outcome of this decision

Award principal, accrued and further statutory late-payment interest on principal until payment against XX, plus 489 euros in costs with late-payment interest from entry into force. Retain the existing security for enforcement.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Allow the application.
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
Case 2-22-139489Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 10b korteriühistu · 80145534

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesLate-payment interest and consequences of delayHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesWater and sewerageCalculation of water chargesRepairs and shared propertyFaçade, windows and balconiesOrganisation and funding of repairs

How it started · editorial summary

The court required evidence of tariffs and services despite the absence of a response.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-139489/31Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Checking the basis of management charges

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 10b korteriühistu · 80145534

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 10b korteriühistu; person concerned XX — debtor

How it started · editorial summary

The court required evidence of tariffs and services despite the absence of a response.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 10b korteriühistu claimed management-charge arrears and accrued late-payment interest from XX. After unsuccessful service of a payment proposal, the case was transferred to the county court. The court deemed documents served through the letterbox once procedural conditions were satisfied; XX did not respond. The court requested further evidence of the basis of the charges. The charter, meeting decisions on tariffs and a facade fund, supplier contracts and heating and water-circulation calculations proved the obligation and debt. The application was allowed. Principal, accrued late-payment interest, 470 euros in costs and statutory late-payment interest on costs from entry into force of the decision fixing them were awarded. Continuing late-payment interest on principal was not awarded in the operative part. Subsequent performance is not established.

Outcome of this decision

Application allowed; debt, accrued late-payment interest and 470 euros in costs with statutory late-payment interest on costs awarded.

A checked extract in this language is not yet available.

First instance
Case 2-21-112650Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Masina tn 3 korteriühistu · 80480764

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

How it started · editorial summary

The owner, a commercial company, appealed against recovery, citing non-receipt of invoices and case documents.

· RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-21-112650/21Read actAppeal

Separate act page

A. Bastrakovi tn 3: Peremaakler’s appeal against debt recovery dismissed

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, A. Bastrakovi tn 3 korteriühistu · OÜ Peremaakler · 80480764 · 11523072

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — apartment association; Debtor and appellant — OÜ Peremaakler

How it started · editorial summary

The owner, a commercial company, appealed against recovery, citing non-receipt of invoices and case documents.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Tartu Ringkonnakohus upheld the award against OÜ Peremaakler in favour of Narva linn, A. Bastrakovi tn 3 korteriühistu: 1003,78 euros in building maintenance costs and 44,69 euros in late-payment interest. The company’s appeal was dismissed and appeal costs allocated to it. The county court was to determine court costs later. The company claimed it had received neither association invoices nor court documents and could not inspect the application or object. The circuit court checked the judicial information system. It showed that materials were sent to the company and one statutory representative confirmed receipt. Documents were also sent to another representative at an address known to the court from other proceedings, with a service procedure warning. The court found the company had an opportunity to present its position. The court also examined the grounds for charges. The association supplied invoices, accounting data, articles, decisions approving management plans, and heating and gas equipment maintenance supplier invoices. The court considered these to prove the costs and allocation between owners, with charges consistent with the adopted procedure. The company gave no specific objections to the debt calculation in its appeal. The award was therefore upheld after checks of both service and debt evidence. The ruling does not confirm actual payment of the sums awarded.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss the appeal and uphold the ruling of 22 September 2021. Allocate appeal costs to OÜ Peremaakler, with the amount set later by the county court.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Dismiss the appeal against the ruling and uphold the Viru Maakohus ruling of 22 September 2021.
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 2-14-311Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 45a korteriühistu · 80250416

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesPayment accounting and set-offLate-payment interest and consequences of delayWater and sewerageCalculation of water chargesRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairsBasement, stairwell and shared rooms

How it started · editorial summary

The appeal court found sufficient evidence of the whole debt.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-311/25Read act

Separate act page

Proof of building charges and set-off for courtyard road expenses

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Puškini 45A Korteriühistu · Täisühing MAŠUK · 80250416 · 10444548

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Association — claimant; Täisühing MAŠUK — defendant, non-residential unit owner

How it started · editorial summary

Initially, part of the charges and the amount of the proposed set-off were not proved. The later appeal assessed the principal-debt evidence differently and awarded the full principal; the set-off was not reconsidered.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Puškini 45A Korteriühistu (now — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 45a korteriühistu). Puškini 45A Korteriühistu sought 419.83 euros in principal and 6.34 euros in late-payment interest from Täisühing MAŠUK. The company admitted 257.26 euros, disputed water circulation charges and other items, and sought to set off 3 466.54 euros spent on a courtyard road. The court found invoices insufficient to prove all costs and their allocation. It accepted that the road works were necessary and that set-off was possible in principle, but the amount was supported only by the defendant’s calculation rather than cost documents. Later, on 16 October 2015, Tartu Ringkonnakohus reversed refusal of the remaining 162.57 euros in principal: total principal awarded became 419.83 euros instead of 257.26 euros. Täisühing MAŠUK bears costs in both instances. Refusal of the set-off was not appealed or reviewed.

Outcome of this decision

Initially, the admitted principal of 257.26 euros was awarded, the remaining claim and set-off were refused, and each party bore its own costs. On 16 October 2015, Tartu Ringkonnakohus reversed refusal of the remaining 162.57 euros in principal: total principal awarded became 419.83 euros instead of 257.26 euros. Täisühing MAŠUK bears all costs in both instances. Refusal of the set-off was not appealed or reviewed; this change did not award additional late-payment interest.

A checked extract in this language is not yet available.

First instance
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-14-311/35Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Repair and water-circulation charges

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Puškini 45A Korteriühistu · Täisühing Mašuk · 80250416 · 10444548

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and appellant — Puškini 45A Korteriühistu; defendant — Täisühing Mašuk

How it started · editorial summary

The appeal court found sufficient evidence of the whole debt.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Puškini 45A Korteriühistu (now — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 45a korteriühistu). Puškini 45A Korteriühistu claimed management charges from Täisühing Mašuk. The company disputed water-circulation, stairwell-repair and paving charges, relying on a separate entrance, and sought to offset courtyard-road costs. The county court awarded the admitted 257.26 euros, refusing the remainder and the set-off. The association appealed the refusal of 162.57 euros and costs; refusal of set-off was not reviewed. The circuit court considered meeting decisions, repair documents and the summer water-circulation methodology sufficient. A separate entrance did not remove common-cost obligations. The appeal succeeded: the total debt is 419.83 euros, including the earlier award. Costs in both instances were imposed on the company without fixing their monetary amount in this judgment.

Outcome of this decision

Appeal allowed; total debt 419.83 euros and costs in both instances borne by the company.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. Allow the appeal.
Appeal
Case 2-14-7482Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kosmonaudi tn 9, Linda tn 7 korteriühistu · 80180884

Water and sewerageAllocation of water consumption and discrepanciesCalculation of water chargesMeters and readingsApartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

How it started · editorial summary

The apartment association NARVA UNISTUS did not prove grounds for allocating additional water costs to one owner. All monetary claims against defendant XX were dismissed.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-7482/51Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Court refused recovery of charges for unaccounted-for water: the charge was not proved

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KORTERIÜHISTU NARVA UNISTUS · 80180884

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant KORTERIÜHISTU NARVA UNISTUS — sought debt and late-payment interest.; Defendant XX — challenged the additional water charge.

How it started · editorial summary

The apartment association NARVA UNISTUS did not prove grounds for allocating additional water costs to one owner. All monetary claims against defendant XX were dismissed.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The association linked the debt to a meeting decision of 29 April 2013 charging one owner 300 euros for alleged unaccounted-for water consumption. It claimed that faulty plumbing allowed water to drip without being recorded by the meter. The defendant denied these allegations and challenged both the inspection reports and the calculation. The initial claim sought 398,27 euros in debt, 51,67 euros in late-payment interest and further interest of 0,07% per day. At the hearing, the association sought 297,95 euros in principal and 130,03 euros in interest. The court found that the disputed balance related to the additional water charge, while the defendant had paid the other charges, which the claimant did not dispute. To recover the money, the association had to prove the total water costs and the basis for allocating them among owners. Invoices and an approved report alone were insufficient. The total costs and allocation data were not submitted to the court. Nor did the meeting minutes explain why the 300 euros was charged only to the defendant. The court regarded the theory of collecting water drop by drop as speculative: the volume of such consumption had not been proved. In its reasons, the court discussed the meeting decision’s conflict with the rules on allocating costs, but then stated that it could not establish the decision’s nullity — absence of legal effect from the time of adoption — because the defendant had not brought a separate claim within the time limit identified by the court. The operative part does not set aside the meeting decision: it dismisses all recovery claims. Costs were allocated to the association. The court identified no costs reimbursable to the defendant and therefore awarded no specific sum to the defendant. The judgment names the association as the apartment association NARVA UNISTUS (now — Narva linn, Kosmonaudi tn 9, Linda tn 7 korteriühistu).

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss all claims by the apartment association NARVA UNISTUS against defendant XX. Leave costs to the association; there are no costs reimbursable to the defendant.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. There are no procedural costs reimbursable to XX.
First instance
Case 2-08-53183Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 10 korteriühistu · 80038614

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesWater and sewerageCalculation of water chargesHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesRepairs and shared propertyRoof and atticOrganisation and funding of repairs

How it started · editorial summary

On rehearing, the company’s management-charge debt was proved.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-08-53183/57Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Management charges of a non-residential owner

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Puškini 10 · OÜ Analan Auto · 80038614 · 10339202

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant on rehearing — KÜ Puškini 10; defendant and non-residential owner — OÜ Analan Auto; claimant representative XX; claimant adviser XX; defendant representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

On rehearing, the company’s management-charge debt was proved.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Puškini 10 (now — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 10 korteriühistu). KÜ Puškini 10 claimed management and utility charges from OÜ Analan Auto. On 14 May 2010 Tartu Ringkonnakohus overturned the initial refusal of 18 December 2009 and remitted the case to establish the amount of costs. On rehearing, the court examined the charter, tariff and roof-repair decisions, corrected bills and a consolidated calculation. The company disputed the basis of charges and treated its payments as water payments. The court affirmed the non-residential owner’s common-cost obligations, found the claim proved and found the alleged water payments unsupported by the required evidence. The claim was allowed for 3,114.73* euros. The new reasoning states that no late-payment interest was claimed. Costs were imposed on the company without fixing their amount separately.

Outcome of this decision

3,114.73* euros awarded; company bears costs, whose amount was not separately fixed.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Leave court costs with the defendant.
First instance