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 2-24-11592Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 56 korteriühistu · 80121574

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesApartment association board and managementAuthority and representationContracts and servicesBuilding servicesLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

How it started · editorial summary

Principal and late-payment interest were paid during the case. Disputes remained over costs, representation and XX’s additional requests.

· Order on a debt claim and the owner’s additional applicationViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-24-11592/15Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 56: payment during proceedings, costs and representation

Order on a debt claim and the owner’s additional application · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 56 korteriühistu · 80121574

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 56 korteriühistu; Person concerned, owner and addressee of the monetary claim — XX; Association’s representative — XX; Board member whose authority was challenged — XX

How it started · editorial summary

Principal and late-payment interest were paid during the case. Disputes remained over costs, representation and XX’s additional requests.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 56 korteriühistu sought management-cost arrears from XX. The amended claim covered principal and accrued late-payment interest. The association submitted calculations, supplier and participant invoices and resolutions setting charges. During proceedings, XX acknowledged and paid these sums but disputed liability for the association’s legal costs. XX also challenged the representative’s authority, requested recalculation of gas charges and correction of information in association documents. The court checked the register entry authorising a board member to act alone and another pending case concerning meeting resolutions. In this case, it accepted the register as the basis for representation. The entry had not changed, and litigation over the board member’s removal remained pending. The court found the calculation justified and noted that liability and the acknowledged amounts were no longer disputed. It nevertheless did not award the principal and accrued late-payment interest again, because they had been paid during proceedings. The operative part allows the application but expressly makes no monetary award for those sums because of performance. Requests to recalculate gas and correct document information were dismissed as outside the case’s subject. XX bears the association’s and XX’s own costs. Their amount is left for a separate order after entry into force. The association’s requested figure is not an amount already awarded; a new debt mentioned in its submissions was not awarded by this operative part either.

Outcome of this decision

Allow the association’s application but make no repeat award of principal and accrued late-payment interest because they were paid during proceedings. Dismiss XX’s requests for gas recalculation and correction of association documents as outside the case. Order XX to bear association costs, to be quantified separately.

A checked extract in this language is not yet available.

First instance
Case 2-20-16862Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 19 korteriühistu · 80228194

Parking and groundsConstruction of parking facilitiesContracts and servicesPayment, advance payments and refundsDamage and insuranceCause and proof of damageAmount of compensationApartment association board and managementAuthority and representation

How it started · editorial summary

The association brought a joint and several demand against the management company and defendant XX to reimburse an advance paid to the contractor for an unfinished car park.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus Jõhvi kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-20-16862/58Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

P. Kerese tn 19: 3 000 euro parking claim against management company and individual dismissed

Judgment · Viru Maakohus Jõhvi kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 19 korteriühistu · Elamu Teenused Grupp OÜ · 80228194 · 11688471

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 19 korteriühistu (80228194); defendant — Elamu Teenused Grupp OÜ (11688471); defendant XX — individual and management company board member; claimant’s representative XX; defendants’ representative XX; association board member XX — representative under the works contract

How it started · editorial summary

The association brought a joint and several demand against the management company and defendant XX to reimburse an advance paid to the contractor for an unfinished car park.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 19 sought 3 000 euros jointly and severally from Elamu Teenused Grupp OÜ and defendant XX: one common amount recoverable from either defendant. The dispute concerned an advance to a contractor for a car park. The association alleged that XX exceeded authority, transferred funds without a proper decision and helped change the design. The works were unfinished and the right to use city land later ended. The defendants replied that the works contract was signed by a board member authorised to represent the association alone. The advance arose under a valid contract and the transfer followed that member’s instruction; consequences of an unfinished project could not be attributed to the payment itself. The court found that XX did lack authority to represent the association in concluding the transaction. But the additional signature did not change the validity of the contract signed by an authorised board member. The association already owed the advance under it. Lack of separate approval by every board member did not turn the transfer into damage caused by the defendant. The court examined liability grounds, including possible breach of the management contract, and found absence of causation decisive: the association had to pay the invoice even without XX’s disputed transfer. Even on a different view, there was no basis to regard non-completion of the car park as a foreseeable result of that act. Design approval problems and the end of land use were not attributed to these defendants either. The judgment of 16 September 2024 dismissed the claim in full and allocated costs to the association, with the amount determined separately. The court acknowledged loss of the advance because the car park was unfinished, but did not find the necessary conditions for liability of these particular defendants; it did not deny the association’s loss.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss the association’s joint and several demand for 3 000 euros against Elamu Teenused Grupp OÜ and defendant XX. Allocate all costs to the association; determine their amount in a separate act after entry into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. The claimant shall bear all procedural costs.
First instance
Case 2-18-133659Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Joala tn 11 korteriühistu · 80189885

Contracts and servicesWorks contracts and designPayment, advance payments and refundsApartment association bills, payments and debtsLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

How it started · editorial summary

The appeal court replaced the dispute’s earlier result with a settlement between association and contractor. The association undertook to pay 3 356,20 euros and proceedings ended.

· RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-18-133659/52Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Joala tn 11: appeal settlement with contractor approved in place of earlier judgment

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, Joala tn 11 korteriühistu · Katuse ABC OÜ · 80189885 · 11336757

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and respondent on appeal – Katuse ABC OÜ; defendant and appellant – Narva linn, Joala tn 11 korteriühistu; organisations’ representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

The appeal court replaced the dispute’s earlier result with a settlement between association and contractor. The association undertook to pay 3 356,20 euros and proceedings ended.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Narva linn, Joala tn 11 and Katuse ABC OÜ settled their works-contract payment dispute on appeal. The circuit court set aside the first-instance judgment, approved payment of 3 356,20 euros under a settlement and terminated proceedings. The contractor sought payment for works and late-payment interest. Viru Maakohus had previously granted the claim, awarding 2 556,20 euros in contractual fees, accrued interest and continuing interest of 0,05% per day. The association appealed, seeking dismissal and costs against the contractor. This ruling does not set out its objections’ detailed grounds. Before the appeal was decided, the parties submitted an agreement. The association undertook to pay the contractor 3 356,20 euros within five working days after it enters into force. Delay entails a contractual penalty of 0,03% of that sum for each day. This is a new settlement term and must not be confused with interest under the judgment set aside. The court checked that the agreement was enforceable and consistent with law, good morals and substantial public interest. It replaced wording on waiver of remaining claims with confirmation that only demands under the approved agreement remain in this case. The dispute thus ended by agreement, rather than an independent waiver of the contractor’s claim. Each party bears its own costs. The court ordered a refund to the association of 210 euros, half the appeal fee. Fees for earlier stages were not refunded because the settlement was reached on appeal. The parties waived appeal against the ruling, and the court stated that no appeal was permitted. The document does not confirm actual payment of the agreed sum.

Outcome of this decision

Set aside the Viru Maakohus judgment of 27.06.2022, approve the settlement and terminate proceedings. The association pays Katuse ABC OÜ 3 356,20 euros within five working days after the agreement enters into force; delay entails a daily contractual penalty of 0,03% of that amount. Each bears its own costs. No demands remain in this case except those under the agreement. Refund the association 210 euros of the appeal fee.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1.3. The parties shall bear their own litigation costs.
Appeal
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.

· 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 2-16-13377Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 44 korteriühistu · 80146002

Contracts and servicesWorks contracts and designQuality and acceptance of worksRepairs and shared propertyRoof and atticDamage and insuranceLeaks and floodingDamage caused during repairsAmount of compensation

How it started · editorial summary

After the contractor’s failed repair, the association engaged another contractor and sought reimbursement.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-13377/118Read act

Separate act page

Defective roof works: recovery of rectification costs

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 44 korteriühistu · OÜ IMHOTEPKOMP · OÜ Alakki · 80146002 · 11482887 ·

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and customer — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 44 korteriühistu; Defendant and contractor — OÜ IMHOTEPKOMP

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought 1500 euros from a contractor for defective replacement of roof pipes. The court found defects in both the original and warranty works and awarded the full amount claimed.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 44 korteriühistu, additionally named Korteriühistu KANGELASTE 44, sought 1500 euros from OÜ IMHOTEPKOMP for rectifying defective work. The contractor replaced 17 roof pipes; the work was accepted and paid for. Leaks later appeared. The association notified the defects and the contractor began warranty repairs, but the association stopped them as technically unsuitable and engaged OÜ Alakki. The court assessed an audit, court-appointed expert evidence, testimony and photographs. It found unsuitable components and inadequate sealing that allowed moisture beneath the roof covering. Video of proper technique on another site did not prove it had been used on this building. Both the original work and attempted repair were found deficient. The contractor had been given an opportunity to remedy defects. Absence of the formal record required by the contract did not negate written notices and repairs begun. However, the court excluded the part repaired by another firm before the contractor was notified. Later rectification and audit costs supported compensation. The claim was granted within the 1500 euros requested. Procedural costs were imposed on the contractor, with their amount to be fixed separately.

Outcome of this decision

OÜ IMHOTEPKOMP must pay the association 1500 euros within the amount claimed. It bears its own and the association’s procedural costs, the latter to be fixed separately. Permission to appeal was granted.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Grant the claim in full. […] The court grants permission to appeal.
First instance
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-16-13377/130Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Kangelaste 44: contractor must reimburse correction of roof defects

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Korteriühistu KANGELASTE 44; Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 44 korteriühistu · Osaühing IMHOTEPKOMP · 80146002 · 11482887

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – Korteriühistu KANGELASTE 44; Defendant and appellant – Osaühing IMHOTEPKOMP

How it started · editorial summary

After the contractor’s failed repair, the association engaged another contractor and sought reimbursement.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The circuit court upheld the award of 1 500 euros against Osaühing IMHOTEPKOMP in favour of the apartment association KANGELASTE 44 for remedying roof defects, changing the reasons in part. Korteriühistu KANGELASTE 44 sought 1 500 euros in damages from Osaühing IMHOTEPKOMP after replacement of 17 roof ventilation pipes. The association alleged that the contractor damaged roofing around the pipes, causing leaks, and attempted repairs with bitumen mastic did not cure the defects. Another company was engaged for repairs and a building audit commissioned. The contractor argued that it was not given sufficient time or opportunity to remedy the work and that the expenses were excessive. The county court granted the claim. Tartu Ringkonnakohus upheld the 1 500-euro award, clarifying its legal reasoning and assessment of the amount. Expert materials and witness testimony supported defects in both the original work and attempted repair. Failed remedial work was a fundamental breach of contract. The association therefore did not have to give the contractor yet another additional deadline and could engage another contractor to remedy the defects. The circuit court found 1 143,84 euros for remedial work and 360 euros for the audit justified. The total established was 1 503,84 euros, but the association sought only 1 500 euros and that was awarded. Another company’s later, cheaper estimate did not prove the actual cost of the relevant repairs. Appeal costs were imposed on IMHOTEPKOMP; the county court will quantify them after the judgment becomes final. The judgment confirms the contractor’s compensation obligation, rather than an actual payment to the association.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss IMHOTEPKOMP’s appeal and uphold the association’s 1 500-euro award. Amend the reasoning in part. The contractor bears appeal costs, to be quantified separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Dismiss the appeal and leave the Viru Maakohus judgment of 11 March 2019 unchanged. Amend the county court judgment’s reasoning in part.
Appeal
Case 2-18-130679Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 9 korteriühistu · 80021803

Contracts and servicesWorks contracts and designQuality and acceptance of worksPayment, advance payments and refundsRepairs and shared propertyFaçade, windows and balconies

How it started · editorial summary

The design fee dispute depended on the agreed window count, fire safety and the client’s acceptance of the result.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-18-130679/23Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

A. Daumani 9: designer’s claim for remaining payment dismissed

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

OÜ NARVA EHITUSPROJEKT · Narva linn, A. Daumani tn 9 korteriühistu · 11002901 · 80021803

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant, designer — OÜ NARVA EHITUSPROJEKT; Defendant, client — Narva linn, A. Daumani tn 9 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The design fee dispute depended on the agreed window count, fire safety and the client’s acceptance of the result.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court dismissed OÜ NARVA EHITUSPROJEKT’s claim for the remaining facade design payment from the apartment association A. Daumani tn 9 because the work did not meet agreed terms. OÜ NARVA EHITUSPROJEKT sought 2 016 euros outstanding for a facade reconstruction design, late-payment interest and 40 euros in recovery costs from Narva linn, A. Daumani tn 9 korteriühistu. The association had paid a 504 euro advance but refused the final design and ended the contract. The disputed term was the number of basement windows: the client insisted on 15, while the designer invoked fire safety requirements and supplied a version with more. The court found 15 windows an agreed essential term despite the number not being separately stated in the signed contract. This followed from the initial design, correspondence and explanations. The design also had to meet mandatory safety requirements. The first version lacked the necessary smoke extraction analysis. The later version took fire safety requirements into account but departed from the agreed window count without client consent. Neither version therefore complied with the contract. Administrative approval alone did not replace compliance with contractual terms. The association objected in time and refused acceptance. The court treated its termination notice as lawful withdrawal from the contract for breach. The designer also withheld permission to use the work until full acceptance, so there was no basis to pay for a separately delivered part. The claim was dismissed in full, with costs allocated to the designer and the amount set later. The court did not assess another provider’s design or the lawfulness of its approvals.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss OÜ NARVA EHITUSPROJEKT’s claim in full. The claimant bears all court costs, with the amount determined after entry into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Dismiss OÜ NARVA EHITUSPROJEKT’s debt claim against Narva linn, A. Daumani tn 9 korteriühistu.
First instance
Case 2-19-108955Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Soldina tn 4 korteriühistu · 80175156

Contracts and servicesPayment, advance payments and refunds

How it started · editorial summary

The service debt was paid before the hearing; the court resolved the remaining costs dispute.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-19-108955/16Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

A-A. Tiimanni 4: payment before the hearing did not free association from costs

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

OÜ NBarts Büroo · Narva linn, A-A. Tiimanni tn 4 korteriühistu · 14420094 · 80175156

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — OÜ NBarts Büroo; Defendant — Narva linn, A-A. Tiimanni tn 4 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The service debt was paid before the hearing; the court resolved the remaining costs dispute.

The dispute and the court’s decision

After payment for the service, the court terminated the case and awarded OÜ NBarts Büroo 155 euros in costs against the apartment association A-A. Tiimanni tn 4. OÜ NBarts Büroo had sued Narva linn, A-A. Tiimanni tn 4 korteriühistu for a service costing 155 euros. The association withheld payment, considering that the provider first had to sign a written contract and issue an invoice on that basis. The disputed sum was transferred on the eve of the hearing. At the hearing the claimant waived the claim and sought costs against the association. The defendant argued it had given no cause for litigation. The court accepted the waiver and terminated proceedings because the monetary demand had been satisfied. When allocating costs, the court found that the service had been ordered and provided and a contract could arise through an exchange of declarations without a separately signed text. Requiring a written document did not justify delayed payment. Payment only just before the hearing also caused additional attendance costs. Costs were therefore allocated to the association. However, the court capped compensation at the claim value. The case was not particularly complex or extensive, and the claimant could have ended the dispute earlier by agreeing to document the contract in writing. The association was ordered to pay 155 euros in costs: a 37,50 euro fee and 117,50 euros for a representative’s assistance. This is a separate costs award, not recovery again of the paid service. Refund of an excessive fee and part of the proper fee requires the payer’s application.

Outcome of this decision

Accept waiver and terminate proceedings. Award OÜ NBarts Büroo 155 euros in court costs against the association.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Accept OÜ NBarts Büroo’s waiver of the claim.
First instance
Case 2-17-10653Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 33 korteriühistu · 80082986

Water and seweragePipes, risers and sewerageRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairsContracts and servicesWorks contracts and designApartment association meetings and decisions

How it started · editorial summary

The circuit court examined the reopening application instead of leaving it unexamined, but found no grounds to reopen the case.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-10653/23Read act

Separate act page

Non-attendance: an association dispute left unexamined

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 33 korteriühistu · 80082986

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — XX; Defendant — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 33 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

After XX did not attend, the claim against the association was left unexamined. The appellate court later changed only the ruling on restoration: it examined and refused that request without deciding the meeting-resolution dispute on its merits.

The dispute and the court’s decision

XX sued Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 33 korteriühistu, formerly Korteriühistu Punane Maja, to invalidate meeting resolutions of 10.05.2017. The preserved subsequent order states that the disputed resolutions concerned a contract to replace water pipes, requiring owners to provide telephone numbers, and a contract for legal services. After XX and their representative did not attend, the court granted the association’s request to leave the claim unexamined. XX objected that the representative had not received a separate summons and the case could not be disposed of this way. The court found that XX had personally received the summons before notifying a new representative. Documents, including the summons, were then made available to the representative electronically. The court considered notice proper. The hearing record confirmed the association’s request, so the court had not acted of its own initiative. No sufficient excuse for absence or request to hear the case without XX was established. The objection was rejected. The restoration request was left unexamined as filed before a written order and its service. The claim itself was also left unexamined, not dismissed on its merits. Costs were imposed on XX, to be fixed separately. Later, on 3 September 2018, Tartu Ringkonnakohus changed only the ruling on the request to restore proceedings: the request had to be examined, but was refused. The claim remained unexamined, the other parts of the order were upheld, and XX bears the appeal costs.

Outcome of this decision

Initially, the procedural objection was refused and the restoration request and claim were left unexamined. On 3 September 2018, Tartu Ringkonnakohus changed only the restoration ruling: the request was examined but refused. The other parts of the order, including leaving the claim unexamined, were upheld. XX bears appeal costs; the substantive validity of the meeting resolutions was not decided.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Leave XX’s application of 17 May 2018 to restore proceedings unexamined.
First instance
· RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-17-10653/27Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 33: reopening application examined, but case not reopened

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 33 korteriühistu · 80082986

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and appellant — XX; Defendant — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 33 korteriühistu (also called Korteriühistu Punane Maja)

How it started · editorial summary

The circuit court examined the reopening application instead of leaving it unexamined, but found no grounds to reopen the case.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Tartu Ringkonnakohus changed the procedural outcome but did not reopen XX’s case against Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 33 korteriühistu. Instead of leaving the reopening application unexamined, it examined and rejected it. The main claim remained unexamined. The claimant challenged meeting decisions of 10 May 2017 on replacing water pipes using an unnamed company, owners providing telephone numbers, and a contract with a lawyer. The court initially granted the claim by default but reopened proceedings after the association applied to set aside the default judgment (kaja). The claimant and representative then failed to attend the hearing on 15 May 2018. At the association’s request, the court left the claim unexamined. The claimant requested reopening, arguing that the representative had not been sent a separate summons and therefore did not know about the hearing. The claimant also denied that the association had requested leaving the claim unexamined. The association opposed the appeal, arguing among other things that it was late. The circuit court found that the summons was sent to the claimant before the court was notified of the representative. The claimant received it personally, and on the day the representative notified the court of their authority, the representative obtained electronic access to all materials, including the summons. In those circumstances, the court did not have to send the same summons again. The association’s request to leave the claim unexamined was recorded in the minutes. The claimant did not substantiate a valid reason for absence or an inability to report it in time. However, the court found it wrong to refuse to examine the reopening application merely because it had been filed before the ruling was put in writing: the participant already knew the decision announced at the hearing. It remedied the defect itself, examined the application and refused reopening. The remainder was upheld and appeal costs allocated to the claimant; the county court will determine the amount separately. The meeting decisions’ validity was not determined on the merits by this ruling.

Outcome of this decision

Set aside the ruling of 25 May 2018 only insofar as it left the reopening application unexamined. Issue a new ruling in that part refusing reopening. Uphold the remainder; XX bears appeal costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. Uphold the county court’s ruling in all other respects.
Appeal
Case 2-16-129462Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 47b korteriühistu · 80145356

Contracts and servicesWorks contracts and designQuality and acceptance of worksPayment, advance payments and refundsRepairs and shared propertyFaçade, windows and balconiesApartment association bills, payments and debtsPayment accounting and set-offLate-payment interest and consequences of delayOrganisation and funding of repairs

How it started · editorial summary

The appeal court rejected the association’s repair reimbursement claim and retained its obligation to pay the contractor, adding late-payment interest. Evidence of defects at the alleged time and notification was insufficient.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-129462/71Read act

Separate act page

Kangelaste 47b and Mirstart OÜ: defective works, costs and set-off

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Mirstart OÜ · KÜ Kangelaste 47b · 11234391 · 80145356

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and counterclaim defendant — Mirstart OÜ; defendant and counterclaimant — KÜ Kangelaste 47b

How it started · editorial summary

Defects justified withholding payment and recovery of repair costs, with the final result determined by set-off.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Kangelaste 47b (now — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 47b korteriühistu). Mirstart OÜ sought the outstanding price of construction works and late-payment interest from KÜ Kangelaste 47b. The association counterclaimed for the cost of remedying defects. The cases were joined after proceedings on earlier default judgments were reopened. The works included renewal of the plinth and paving and installation of canopies. The court found the defective cladding proved by photographs: tiles had fallen off extensively soon after handover. Acceptance did not prevent reliance on defects. The documents as a whole showed timely knowledge by the contractor, which failed to remedy them within a reasonable time. Third-party repair costs of 5544 euros were found necessary and reasonable. Lawful withholding of the price balance was temporary; the court did not find a price reduction or effective withdrawal from the contract. Once the cost claim was allowed, the basis for withholding ended, so principal of 3039.27 euros* was upheld. Late-payment interest of 683.21 euros was refused because lawful withholding was not late performance. Further late-payment interest was also refused because the mutual claims were set off. The court allowed the counterclaim and applied set-off, awarding the association 2500 euros* against Mirstart OÜ. Each party bears its costs. Payment of that award was not established.

Outcome of this decision

The principal claim was allowed for 3039.27 euros* without late-payment interest; following the counterclaim and set-off, 2500 euros* was awarded to the association against Mirstart OÜ.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
5. Each party shall bear its own costs.
First instance
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-16-129462/83Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Kangelaste 47b: appeal court rejected association’s repair correction costs and awarded payment to contractor

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ Kangelaste 47b · Mirstart OÜ · 80145356 · 1123439

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: contractor Mirstart OÜ – claimant and defendant to the joined demand, appellant; apartment association – customer, defendant and claimant on the joined demand, appellant; parties’ representatives and expert XX

How it started · editorial summary

The appeal court rejected the association’s repair reimbursement claim and retained its obligation to pay the contractor, adding late-payment interest. Evidence of defects at the alleged time and notification was insufficient.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The circuit court allowed Mirstart OÜ’s appeal and dismissed the apartment association Kangelaste 47b’s appeal. After review, the association was ordered to pay the contractor 3 039,27* euros in outstanding fees, 1 017,61 euros in accrued late-payment interest and continuing statutory late-payment interest. The association’s claim for the cost of correcting works was dismissed. The contractor repaired the plinth and lintel and installed two canopies. The association alleged that facing panels began detaching and that the contractor had been notified but did not remedy the defects. It hired another company and sought reimbursement, taking account of the unpaid part of the original work. The contractor disputed the defects at the stated time and proper notification. The first-instance court granted the contractor’s monetary claim without interest, recognised the association’s claim and set them off. The association appealed only the allocation of costs; the contractor appealed the award to the association and refusal of interest. The circuit court assessed the evidence differently. Photographs from September 2016 did not establish the state of works in summer 2015: by the time of photography, the new contractor could already have started dismantling. A copy of a letter did not prove receipt. Board minutes without the contractor representative’s signature proved neither participation nor notification of defects. A new paid contract for filling joints also did not prove an agreement to remedy defects in the former work. It contained no such reference. The association had not proved defects at the alleged time, notification or a deadline for remedy; the contractual procedure for engaging an expert had also not been followed. The set-off and earlier award in favour of the association were therefore set aside. Costs at both levels were imposed on the association, to be quantified separately by the county court. Dismissal of the association’s claim concerns proof of the conditions for liability, rather than an established absence of any defects in the repairs.

Outcome of this decision

Grant Mirstart OÜ’s claim and dismiss the association’s claim. Award 3 039,27* euros in principal, 1 017,61 euros in accrued late-payment interest and statutory late-payment interest on principal from the judgment date until payment against the association. Allow the contractor’s appeal and dismiss the association’s. The association bears costs at both levels, to be quantified separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
4. Allow Mirstart OÜ’s appeal.
Appeal
Case 2-18-102661Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Joala tn 11 korteriühistu · 80189885

Contracts and servicesWorks contracts and designPayment, advance payments and refundsApartment association bills, payments and debtsInstalments and payment schedules

How it started · editorial summary

The association and contractor settled the dispute about returning an advance. The court approved four payments totalling 1 095,82 euros and terminated the case.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-18-102661/4Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Joala tn 11: contractor agreed to return the remaining advance in four payments

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Joala tn 11 korteriühistu · OÜ Disainteenused · 80189885 · 12513609

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — apartment association, client commissioning the works; debtor — OÜ Disainteenused, contractor; organisations’ representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association and contractor settled the dispute about returning an advance. The court approved four payments totalling 1 095,82 euros and terminated the case.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court approved an agreement between Narva linn, Joala tn 11 korteriühistu and OÜ Disainteenused for payment of 1 095,82 euros and terminated the case. The agreed sum includes 1 030,82 euros in principal, a 45 euro fee and 20 euros in procedural costs. The association alleged that the company received an advance for works but the contract was terminated early for non-performance. The parties determined the value of work done and agreed return of the unused advance. The association claimed that the company had returned only part and sought the balance. This is a claim against a contractor, rather than an owner’s apartment maintenance debt. The company initially objected to a payment order and the case was transferred to Viru Maakohus. The participants then submitted a payment schedule and requested an end to the dispute. The court found the agreement admissible and enforceable. It did not separately decide the company’s request to withdraw its earlier objection: after approval, that no longer affected the outcome. Payment was set in four parts: 273,95 euros by 25 April, May and June 2018, and 273,97 euros by 25 July 2018. The company may pay earlier; it bears its own costs. The ruling does not confirm actual performance of the schedule.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement: OÜ Disainteenused pays the association 1 095,82 euros — 273,95 euros by 25.04, 25.05 and 25.06.2018 and 273,97 euros by 25.07.2018; early payment is permitted. Leave the company’s own costs to it. Terminate the case and allocate costs under the agreement.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Terminate the proceedings in civil case No 2-18-102661.
First instance
Case 2-16-129736Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Malmi tn 10 korteriühistu · 80175972

Contracts and servicesWorks contracts and designPayment, advance payments and refundsRepairs and shared propertyRoof and atticOrganisation and funding of repairs

How it started · editorial summary

The extra 500 euros was not awarded: in this case the signed invoice confirmed receipt of the document, rather than agreement to increase the price.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-16-129736/36Read act

Separate act page

Malmitare and OÜ Hiolen: an invoice did not prove an extra-payment agreement

Judgment · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

OÜ Hiolen · KÜ Malmitare · 12530714 · 80175972

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — OÜ Hiolen; defendant — KÜ Malmitare

How it started · editorial summary

A signature acknowledging receipt did not prove agreement on extra materials and price.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Malmitare (now — Narva linn, Malmi tn 10 korteriühistu). OÜ Hiolen sought 500 euros from KÜ Malmitare for additional roofing materials. The main roof-repair contract had been performed: the works were accepted and the agreed price paid. The dispute concerned a separate extra charge. The contractor treated the association representative’s signature on the invoice as confirmation of a contract amendment; the association said it only acknowledged receipt. The court agreed with the association. The contract prescribed a written amendment procedure which had not been followed. The acceptance record, final invoice, correspondence and meeting minutes did not establish an additional agreement. The documents and disputed invoice identified the same roofing material. The signature on the invoice was insufficient to prove a new obligation to pay for materials. The claim was dismissed. Hiolen bears its own and the association’s costs; the latter will be quantified separately after finality. The court granted permission to appeal.

Outcome of this decision

The 500-euro extra charge was refused; OÜ Hiolen bears costs, with the association’s costs quantified separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Dismiss OÜ Hiolen’s claim.
First instance
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-16-129736/45Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Malmitare: contractor did not prove agreement on extra payment for roofing material

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

OÜ Hiolen · KÜ Malmitare · 12530714 · 80175972

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and appellant – OÜ Hiolen, contractor; Defendant – KÜ Malmitare, customer

How it started · editorial summary

The extra 500 euros was not awarded: in this case the signed invoice confirmed receipt of the document, rather than agreement to increase the price.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Tartu Ringkonnakohus dismissed OÜ Hiolen’s appeal and upheld the refusal to award an additional 500 euros for roofing material against KÜ Malmitare. The court found that the contractor had not proved the association’s consent to increase the price or enter a separate additional-payment agreement. The contractor had repaired the roof and alleged that the parties agreed to buy higher-quality material for an additional charge. It relied on an invoice dated 4 November 2014 signed by representatives of both parties and sworn testimony from its representative. It argued that the signatures confirmed a contract amendment. The association objected that it had fully paid the agreed price of 28 378,12 euros for works and materials. It said the signature on the additional invoice confirmed only receipt of the document. There was no agreement to increase the price, and the final invoice and acceptance certificate retained the former price. The circuit court agreed with the association. The contractual estimate bound the contractor. To demand more, it had to prove a change to the total price or a separate agreement to cover the increase. The contract required a written amendment procedure: a written proposal by one party and a written reply by the other within five working days. The court did not see expressed consent to amend the contract in the disputed invoice; a note about agreement between the parties was insufficient. Neither the association’s conduct nor the contractor representative’s testimony established a separate agreement. Dismissal of the claim remained in force. Appeal costs were imposed on OÜ Hiolen; the county court will quantify them after the judgment becomes final. The judgment concerns proof of this specific extra charge and does not establish that a signature on any invoice always has the same meaning.

Outcome of this decision

Leave the Viru Maakohus judgment of 29 September 2017 unchanged and dismiss OÜ Hiolen’s appeal. The contractor bears appeal costs; the county court will quantify them after the judgment becomes final.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
The county court shall determine the monetary amount of litigation costs when the judgment becomes final.
Appeal
Case 2-15-17330Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Rakvere tn 30 korteriühistu · 80175096

Contracts and servicesTenancy and leaseApartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsInstalments and payment schedules

How it started · editorial summary

Under the agreement, the tenancy was recognised as remaining in force; XX was allowed to pay costs and debt owed to the association in instalments.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-17330/49Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Rakvere 30: agreement preserved a municipal tenancy and provided instalment payments

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn · SA Narva Linnaelamu · KÜ Rakvere 30 Narva · · 90003404 · 80175096

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — tenant XX; Defendant — Narva linn; City’s representative — SA Narva Linnaelamu; Third party on the city’s side — KÜ Rakvere 30 Narva

How it started · editorial summary

Under the agreement, the tenancy was recognised as remaining in force; XX was allowed to pay costs and debt owed to the association in instalments.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court approved an agreement between XX and Narva linn, acting through SA Narva Linnaelamu, and ended the dispute seeking to cancel termination of a municipal tenancy. The parties confirmed that the tenancy remained in force. KÜ Rakvere 30 Narva participated as a third party on the city’s side. Under the agreement, XX agreed to pay court costs owed to SA Narva Linnaelamu and utility and maintenance debt owed to the association in instalments. The city retained the right to terminate the tenancy if the tenancy terms and the agreement’s utility payment and maintenance terms were breached. This is an agreed resolution preserving the tenancy, rather than a separate judicial determination of the lawfulness of the earlier termination. Each participant bears its other costs. Actual performance of the agreement has not been established.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement: the parties confirmed continuation of the municipal tenancy and agreed instalments for costs and debt owed to the association. Terminate the case. The city retains its right to terminate for breaches specified in the agreement; each participant bears its other costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
III. Leave procedural costs not specified in the settlement to the parties themselves.
First instance