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 2-25-697Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Rakvere tn 87 korteriühistu · 80152818

Apartment association meetings and decisionsApartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the board

How it started · editorial summary

Withdrawal ended the dispute over changing the board; the association’s costs were reduced.

· Court orderViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-25-697/32Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Rakvere tn 87: discontinuance of a dispute over meeting resolutions

Court order · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Rakvere tn 87 korteriühistu · 80152818

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — XX; person concerned — Narva linn, Rakvere tn 87 korteriühistu; five individual persons concerned — XX

How it started · editorial summary

Withdrawal ended the dispute over changing the board; the association’s costs were reduced.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Applicant XX challenged resolutions of the general meeting of Narva linn, Rakvere tn 87 korteriühistu, including removal and election of the board. The applicant sought a declaration of nullity or invalidation and interim protection. Interim protection had previously been refused. Before the hearing, the applicant withdrew the main application. The court accepted withdrawal and discontinued the case without deciding the legality of the meeting resolutions on the merits. A new application between the same participants on the same grounds and subject matter is precluded. Costs were placed on the applicant, but the association received 225 euros rather than the 600.10 euros claimed. The representative’s hourly rate was reasonable; necessary time was reduced from four hours to one and a half: the case was simple, the representative took no procedural steps and the hearing was cancelled in good time. Half the main application fee, 25 euros, is refunded; the fee for the already decided interim application is not. Other costs remain with the participants.

Outcome of this decision

The case was discontinued on withdrawal without a merits finding on the resolutions. The association was awarded 225 euros in costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Discontinue proceedings in civil case No 2-25-697.
First instance
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 2-23-13839Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kraavi tn 7 korteriühistu · 80265592

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesApartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the board

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought unpaid management and utility charges. XX challenged the documents, heating allocation and liability after the property was sold.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-23-13839/25Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Debt to an apartment association: heating calculations and board authority

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kraavi tn 7 korteriühistu · 80265592

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, Kraavi tn 7 korteriühistu; Person concerned and counter-applicant — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought unpaid management and utility charges. XX challenged the documents, heating allocation and liability after the property was sold.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Kraavi tn 7 korteriühistu sought unpaid building management and utility charges. XX disputed the reliability of invoices and meeting minutes, the board’s authority and allocation of heating costs by floor area. XX also argued that liability ended with the auction sale of the property. The court examined the debt calculation, invoices, management plans, minutes and supplier contracts. It found allegations of forged documents and missing required signatures unproved, checked powers of attorney and found no violation in extending a board member’s term. It found that costs in this case were calculated according to the ownership share. XX had not established grounds for another allocation or refusal to pay on good-faith grounds. The absence of an energy audit did not by itself remove liability. The court linked transfer of the owner’s obligations to registration of title, rather than receipt of the auction instrument. The association’s application was granted. A request for repayment of excess heating charges submitted after the deadline for final submissions was not admitted as a counter-application in these proceedings. It was sent for registration as a separate application; its merits were not decided by this order.

Outcome of this decision

The debt was awarded to the association. XX must bear procedural costs, whose amount will be determined separately after the order becomes final. The heating repayment claim was sent for registration as a separate application.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Grant the application of Narva linn, Kraavi tn 7 korteriühistu. […] Order XX to bear the procedural costs.
First instance
Case 2-24-101553Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Energia tn 3 korteriühistu · 80189425

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

How it started · editorial summary

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

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

Separate act page

Energia tn 3: rates, allocation of payments and limitation

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

Narva linn, Energia tn 3 korteriühistu · 80189425

Entry into force has not been reverified

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

How it started · editorial summary

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

The dispute and the court’s decision

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

Outcome of this decision

Allow the application in part: award principal, accrued and further statutory late-payment interest until payment. XX bears 73% of association costs; clause5 awards 1283.12* euros. Statutory late-payment interest on costs also runs from entry into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Allow the application of Narva linn, Energia tn 3 korteriühistu in part.
First instance
Case 2-23-12189Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 17 korteriühistu · 80236107

Apartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the boardApartment association meetings and decisions

How it started · editorial summary

The challenge to meeting decisions could not continue after applicant XX’s death because the demand concerning board status was personal.

· Ruling terminating proceedingsViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-23-12189/25Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kreenholmi tn 17: proceedings on board membership status terminated

Ruling terminating proceedings · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 17 korteriühistu · 80236107

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant – XX; interested association – Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 17 korteriühistu; three interested individuals – XX

How it started · editorial summary

The challenge to meeting decisions could not continue after applicant XX’s death because the demand concerning board status was personal.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Applicant XX challenged the Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 17 korteriühistu general meeting decisions of 22 August 2023, seeking a declaration of nullity, meaning no legal effect from adoption, or their invalidation. During proceedings, the representative reported the applicant’s death and requested termination. The association explained that the dispute concerned recalling the applicant from the board and the wish to retain that status. The court considered continuation with a legal successor but ultimately accepted that the disputed right was personal. Board membership status does not pass by inheritance. The representative did not seek a stay and did not substantiate continuation after a further inquiry. On 24 March 2025, the court ended proceedings because succession was impossible in this legal relationship. This is not dismissal of the demands or confirmation that the meeting decisions were lawful: the original merits were not decided. Each participant was left to bear its own costs; the court determined no reimbursable costs. The ruling allowed an appeal within 15 days from the day after receipt.

Outcome of this decision

Terminate proceedings because succession in the disputed legal relationship is impossible; each participant bears its own costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. The participants shall bear their own litigation costs. There are no reimbursable litigation costs.
First instance
Case 2-22-670Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Soldina tn 4 korteriühistu · 80175156

Apartment association meetings and decisionsVoting and representationQuorum and repeat meetingsArticles of association and amendmentsApartment association board and managementAuthority and representationParking and groundsConstruction of parking facilities

How it started · editorial summary

Applicant XX challenged written decisions for lack of unanimity and board authority; the association agreed with the application.

· Ruling on an application challenging general meeting decisionsViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-22-670/11Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Soldina tn 4: request to declare written decisions void rejected

Ruling on an application challenging general meeting decisions · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Soldina tn 4 korteriühistu · 80175156

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — XX; interested person — Narva linn, Soldina tn 4 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

Applicant XX challenged written decisions for lack of unanimity and board authority; the association agreed with the application.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Applicant XX sought a finding that the association’s decisions had no legal effect from adoption, or were void. The decisions of Narva linn, Soldina tn 4 korteriühistu were recorded on 6 January 2022 following written voting in December 2021. The questions concerned parking, accounting review and lighting. The applicant invoked the articles’ unanimity requirement because not all owners voted, and alleged that the board’s term had expired before it organised the vote. The association agreed that the application should succeed. After doubts about the first representative’s authority, the court obtained the current registered representative’s view, which also accepted the arguments. However, the court stated that it was not bound by participants’ legal assessments in such an application and had to examine nullity independently. On 31 January 2025 it rejected the application. It distinguished nullity from setting aside: in its assessment, breach of voting-number rules did not itself establish the alleged nullity ground. The applicant had not sought to set the decisions aside. The court also found void the articles’ clause allowing written decisions only if all members voted, and applied statutory quorum and majority rules. It considered participation by 60 votes sufficient. It likewise regarded the board term argument as a possible ground for setting aside, rather than nullity; it examined no other annulment grounds. It did not review lawfulness on other grounds. Costs were allocated to the applicant, but no reimbursement was awarded to the association: no proven costs arose and a statutory representative submitted its position. Appeal was available within 15 days from the day following receipt.

Outcome of this decision

Reject the application to declare the decisions of 06.01.2022 void. Allocate costs to the applicant, but there are no reimbursable association costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Reject XX’s application to declare Narva linn, Soldina tn 4 korteriühistu’s general meeting decision of 06 January 2022 void.
First instance
Case 2-23-4315Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 17 korteriühistu · 80070061

Apartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the boardApartment association meetings and decisions

How it started · editorial summary

Four applicants XX challenged apartment association Kangelaste prospekt 17’s meeting decisions of 22.02.2023 changing board membership.

· Ruling terminating the case after applicants waived their applicationViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-23-4315/12Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Board composition dispute at apartment association Kangelaste prospekt 17 ended after a new meeting

Ruling terminating the case after applicants waived their application · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 17 korteriühistu · 80070061

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicants XX — four individuals; interested person — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 17 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

Four applicants XX challenged apartment association Kangelaste prospekt 17’s meeting decisions of 22.02.2023 changing board membership.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Four applicants XX sought a finding that general meeting decisions had no legal effect from adoption, or were void. The decisions were taken by Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 17 korteriühistu on 22 February 2023 to recall the former board and elect a new one. The court discovered in the register that another meeting on 18 October 2023 had elected the board afresh. Review of the February decisions would no longer affect the current composition, so it asked for views on continuing the case. The applicants agreed to termination but asked for 240 euros in costs to be allocated to former board and initiative group members. The court treated agreement as waiver of the application, accepted it and terminated without deciding nullity. The association’s representative also agreed to termination. Costs were left jointly and severally to the applicants; their request to determine reimbursable costs was rejected. The individuals they named were not parties and could not bear costs of these proceedings. The association incurred no proven costs: its response was prepared by a statutory representative. The court separately explained the possibility of an independent damages claim and requesting half the fee back. This act did not establish nullity of the February decisions.

Outcome of this decision

Terminate proceedings in case 2-23-4315. Leave costs jointly and severally to the applicants and reject their application to determine reimbursable costs; no sums are reimbursable to participants.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. The applicants shall bear the procedural costs jointly and severally.
First instance
Case 2-24-13338Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

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

Apartment association board and managementReorganisation and liquidation

How it started · editorial summary

The association in liquidation challenged refusal to open separate associations’ register cards under the special rules for dissolving an association covering several properties.

· RulingTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-24-13338/3Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Kosmonaudi tn 9, Linda tn 7: refusal to open new association register cards reversed and remitted

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

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

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant and appellant against the ruling – Narva linn, Kosmonaudi tn 9, Linda tn 7 korteriühistu (in liquidation); applicant’s representative XX – notary; liquidators XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association in liquidation challenged refusal to open separate associations’ register cards under the special rules for dissolving an association covering several properties.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Narva linn, Kosmonaudi tn 9, Linda tn 7, in liquidation, asked the registration department to open cards for two separate associations, one for each previously jointly managed property. The application relied on the general meeting’s decision to dissolve the former association under the special rules for associations covering several properties. Dissolution was already registered. The registration department refused, considering that division was permitted only without liquidation under the general association rules. It believed the former association first had to resume activity and then resolve to divide. The association appealed, relying on the special rule in KrtS § 69 lg 4 and the registrar’s duty to open new cards on its own initiative. The circuit court agreed. The special procedure permits dissolution of an association managing several properties even after KrtS entered into force. It creates a separate association for each property while the old association undergoes liquidation. Dissolution does not automatically delete the old legal person from the register. Cards for the new associations must be opened as an official duty; if the registrar fails to act, the liquidators may file the relevant application. The ruling of 8 January 2025 reversed refusal, remitted the application to the registration department and allowed the appeal. It is not a register entry made by the circuit court itself. Appeal costs were left with the association and the 70-euro fee paid is to be refunded. The ruling confirms neither actual opening of new cards nor subsequent liquidation.

Outcome of this decision

Set aside the Tartu Maakohus registration department ruling of 16.08.2024 No. Ü 40014520 / 20. Remit the application of 07.08.2024 for reconsideration. Allow the appeal, leave costs with the association and refund the 70-euro fee.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Allow Narva linn, Kosmonaudi tn 9, Linda tn 7 korteriühistu’s (in liquidation) appeal against the ruling.
Appeal
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 2-21-6288Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12 korteriühistu · 80175498

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeVoting and representationBudget, management plan and ratesDocuments and informationInspection and copies of documentsReporting and review of expenditureApartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the boardRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairsParking and groundsConstruction of parking facilities

How it started · editorial summary

Nine applicants XX challenged the apartment association Kangelaste prospekt 12 written decisions for 2021; the association denied breaches.

· Ruling leaving an application unexaminedViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-21-6288/16Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Dispute over Kangelaste prospekt 12 decisions left unexamined after renewed confirmation

Ruling leaving an application unexamined · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12 korteriühistu · 80175498

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicants XX – nine individuals; interested person – Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

Nine applicants XX challenged the apartment association Kangelaste prospekt 12 written decisions for 2021; the association denied breaches.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Nine applicants XX sought a declaration that the Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12 korteriühistu decisions of 22 February 2021 were void, meaning without legal effect from adoption, or alternatively their invalidation. The written vote concerned accounts, management and repair plans, video surveillance, parking and board elections. The applicants relied on one participant not receiving drafts, deficiencies in financial documents and breaches of candidate nomination procedure. The association objected that drafts were sent, papers were made available for inspection, accounts had been checked and alternative candidates received insufficient votes. The court did not decide these disagreements on their merits. Register data showed that the general meeting of 15 March 2022 had confirmed the 2021 decisions. The court found no information that the new decision had been challenged. It asked the applicants to explain their continuing personal legal interest in review of the former vote and substantiate invalidation. No response arrived in time. The court considered that the old decisions’ legal effects could no longer be removed by this application: the same provisions applied under the new, unchallenged decision. The applicants explained no other independent interest. The application was therefore left unexamined. This is not a judicial finding that the original procedure was lawful or a rejection of nullity arguments on their merits. Each participant bears its own costs, which the court did not quantify. The court clarified the challenged decisions’ date from the minutes as 22 February, although applicants initially gave 14 February 2021.

Outcome of this decision

Leave the application to declare the decisions of 22.02.2021 void or invalidate them unexamined. Leave costs with the participants who incurred them, without quantification.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. The participants shall bear their own litigation costs. Given this allocation, the court will not quantify them.
First instance
Case 2-21-2660Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 11 korteriühistu · 80170749

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeVoting and representationAgenda and minutesApartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the board

How it started · editorial summary

The written decisions on the board have no legal effect: the ballot questions did not show precisely what owners were voting on. The court did not separately assess whether enough votes were cast.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-21-2660/20Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kangelaste prospekt 11: written decisions on the board declared void because voting questions were unclear

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 11 korteriühistu · 80170749

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant XX – owner; interested person – Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 11 korteriühistu; applicant’s representative XX; association representative XX; board candidates XX

How it started · editorial summary

The written decisions on the board have no legal effect: the ballot questions did not show precisely what owners were voting on. The court did not separately assess whether enough votes were cast.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court declared the written decisions of owners of the apartment association Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 11 dated 22 December 2020 void. They had no legal effect from adoption because owners were not given clearly formulated voting questions. Applicant XX challenged a board election held without a meeting. The noticeboard named two issues: recalling the former board and electing a new board with a chair. The ballot, however, listed candidate names and for-or-against options without separating those issues. The applicant also alleged that the majority required by the articles had not been obtained. The association objected that the document’s substance mattered more than its title and the procedure had been followed. The board later decided not to implement the disputed decisions or change the register entry. The association proposed settlement with partial fee reimbursement. The applicant disagreed, including over costs allocation. The court found that the ballots did not make clear whether a vote meant recall of the old board or election of the new one. In a written vote, owners must have a clear draft decision. Its absence and unclear questions were a substantial breach of decision-making procedure. Having established nullity, the court did not examine the sufficiency of votes as a separate ground for invalidation. The board’s refusal to implement the decisions and absence of a register entry did not remove the owner’s interest in judicial review: validity does not depend only on submission to the register. The ruling of 5 September 2023 granted the application. The applicant’s costs were imposed on the association, which must also bear its own. The court left monetary quantification for a separate decision after finality.

Outcome of this decision

Grant owner XX’s application and declare the association’s decisions of 22.12.2020 void. The association bears the applicant’s costs and its own. Quantify costs separately after the ruling becomes final.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Declare the decisions of the apartment owners of Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 11 korteriühistu of 22.12.2020 void.
First instance
Case 2-22-11550Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 13 korteriühistu · 80445319

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeBudget, management plan and ratesArticles of association and amendmentsApartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the boardAuthority and representationRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairsAgenda and minutes

How it started · editorial summary

Owner XX obtained a declaration that decisions on repairs, the chair and maintenance charges were void. The court relied on breaches involving the agenda and preparation of the meeting.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-11550/8Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

P. Kerese tn 13: decisions on payments and chair void because of the meeting agenda

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 13 korteriühistu · 80445319

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant XX – owner; interested person – Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 13 korteriühistu; applicant’s representative XX; association representative and elected chair XX

How it started · editorial summary

Owner XX obtained a declaration that decisions on repairs, the chair and maintenance charges were void. The court relied on breaches involving the agenda and preparation of the meeting.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court declared several decisions of the apartment association Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 13 repeat meeting of 9 June 2022 without legal effect from adoption. Significant matters had not been identified in advance on the agenda, and access arrangements for the management plan being amended had not been provided. Owner XX challenged a special contribution of 5 euros per square metre to complete repairs, election of the chair, the chair’s monthly remuneration and a maintenance charge of 0,51 euros per square metre. XX argued that these decisions could not be taken under a general current-matters item. XX also disputed the meeting’s authority to elect the chair and the ability to impose payments outside the management plan. The association admitted the stated circumstances but asked that each participant bear its own costs. The applicant considered that the association should pay them. The court relied on the admitted facts: owners could not understand in advance which decisions would be taken. It regarded the chair and payments as significant matters and the convening breach as sufficient for nullity. Access arrangements for the management plan had not been properly specified. The court did not decide the other arguments: it imposed no general ban on a meeting electing a chair and did not separately assess payments outside the plan. The ruling of 10 October 2022 declared item 3 and items 4.1–4.3 void. Each bears its own costs. The court took account of the possibility of an out-of-court resolution and another meeting before the application was filed.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the application. Declare item 3 on the 5 euros/m² payment and items 4.1–4.3 on chair XX, monthly remuneration and the 0,51 euros/m² maintenance charge from 01.06.2022 void. Leave costs with the participants; none are reimbursed.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. The participants shall bear their own litigation costs. There are no reimbursable litigation costs.
First instance