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 2-20-11053Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 19 korteriühistu · 80228194

Apartment association meetings and decisions

How it started · editorial summary

Two applicants XX sought reversal of the association’s decisions of 31.05.2020; after proceedings resumed, the participants agreed a settlement.

· Ruling approving a settlementViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-20-11053/32Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

P. Kerese tn 19: settlement in dispute over association decisions

Ruling approving a settlement · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 19 korteriühistu · 80228194

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: two applicants – XX; interested person – Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 19 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

Two applicants XX sought reversal of the association’s decisions of 31.05.2020; after proceedings resumed, the participants agreed a settlement.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Two applicants XX challenged Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 19 korteriühistu decisions adopted without a meeting on 31 May 2020. The court received the application in July 2020. Proceedings were stayed in September 2022 pending another case and resumed in March 2026. After resumption, the court suggested an agreement. The parties initially submitted differing versions. The applicants proposed payment of 1000 euros within ten calendar days after finality. The association proposed two payments with specific deadlines. The court said it could not approve inconsistent terms. The applicants then accepted the association’s latest version. On 29 July 2026, the court approved a settlement: both applicants fully give up their challenge to the decisions, and the association reimburses them a total of 1000 euros in litigation and legal assistance costs. Payments of 500 euros are due no later than 5 August and 5 September 2026. The condition that no additional demands remain from this case is linked to full payment of that sum. The court found the agreement permissible and enforceable and terminated proceedings. It did not determine the lawfulness of the association decisions on their merits. Each participant bears expenses not mentioned in the agreement. An appeal was allowed within 15 days of service of the ruling.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the settlement: waiver of the challenge to the decisions in exchange for reimbursement by the association of 1000 euros in two 500-euro payments by 05.08.2026 and 05.09.2026. Terminate proceedings; other costs remain with the participants.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2) Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 19 korteriühistu undertakes to reimburse the applicants’ litigation and legal assistance costs totalling 1000 (one thousand) euros in two instalments: the first payment of 500 euros no later than 05 August 2026 and the second payment of 500 euros no later than 05 September 2026. […] 2. Terminate proceedings in civil case No. 2-20-11053.
First instance
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 2-22-9419Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 3 korteriühistu · 80162521

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeArticles of association and amendmentsVoting and representationHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating charges

How it started · editorial summary

After the nullity application succeeded, Rosehill challenged being left to bear its own costs. The main outcome concerning the articles was not at issue in this appeal.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-9419/25Read act

Separate act page

An association’s new articles: notice of the meeting by email

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Osaühing Rosehill · Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 3 korteriühistu · 10972543 · 80162521

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Osaühing Rosehill; Person concerned — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 3 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

Osaühing Rosehill challenged approval of the new articles because it had not received the notice or draft. The appeal court later changed only the allocation of procedural costs.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Osaühing Rosehill, which owned premises in the building, sought a declaration that the 29.04.2022 resolution approving new articles of Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 3 korteriühistu was void. It challenged notice of the meeting, allocation of costs and voting arrangements. The association said it had sent the notice and draft in advance to an email address known to it. The court found that the email had been sent to an account that was already closed. Sending the message did not prove its delivery. The company had received neither the notice nor the draft and could not prepare for the meeting. The court regarded this as a material defect in convening the meeting. The absence of a signature on the notice was not itself considered a material defect. The court found the meeting quorate but declared its resolution void because of the notice defect. It therefore did not examine the alternative objections to the substance of the articles. The court refused to stay proceedings pending the other dispute about the articles. Initially, each participant was left to bear its own costs. On 31 October 2025, however, Tartu Ringkonnakohus reversed only the costs part: the association must bear the costs of both the first-instance and appeal proceedings, with the amount to be determined separately by Viru Maakohus. The finding that the meeting resolution was void was not challenged or re-examined on appeal.

Outcome of this decision

The first-instance court declared the 29 April 2022 meeting resolution void and refused a stay. On 31 October 2025, Tartu Ringkonnakohus changed only the costs allocation: the association must bear the costs of both instances, with the amount to be determined separately. The finding of nullity was not re-examined.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Declare the resolution adopted by the apartment owners’ general meeting of Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 3 korteriühistu on 29 April 2022 void.
First instance
· Appeal court ruling on court costsTartu Ringkonnakohtu tsiviilkolleegium · Appeal · № 2-22-9419/34Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Osaühing Rosehill: costs of challenge to apartment association Kangelaste prospekt 3’s decision allocated to association

Appeal court ruling on court costs · Tartu Ringkonnakohtu tsiviilkolleegium · Appeal

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 3 korteriühistu · Osaühing Rosehill · 80162521 · 10972543

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant and appellant against the ruling — Osaühing Rosehill; interested person — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 3 korteriühistu; applicant’s representative XX; association’s representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

After the nullity application succeeded, Rosehill challenged being left to bear its own costs. The main outcome concerning the articles was not at issue in this appeal.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Osaühing Rosehill challenged Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 3 korteriühistu’s meeting decision of 29 April 2022 adopting new articles. It cited inadequate notice, documents sent to an old non-working email address and the articles’ content. The association said it sent necessary materials to the known address and complied with convening rules. On 9 May 2025, Viru Maakohus declared the decision void, meaning without legal effect from adoption, but left each participant to bear its own costs. It considered that the company contributed to non-notification by not supplying current details. Rosehill appealed only costs, arguing that the association knew the addresses used from ongoing correspondence. The association sought to retain the original allocation. The circuit court confined review to costs. Nullity had not been appealed and, according to this act, that part was already final. The court noted a substantive dispute over the meeting decision’s lawfulness. It is normally fair to allocate costs to the losing participant. The company had properly sought judicial protection because convening rules were breached and incurred costs that would not otherwise have arisen. The ruling of 31 October 2025 allowed the appeal, allocating first-instance and appeal costs to the association, with the amount to be set later by Viru Maakohus. It also explained that the fee for this appeal was 50 euros rather than the 70 paid; a request was needed for a 20 euro refund. This explanation is not a refund already made.

Outcome of this decision

Set aside the costs allocation in the ruling of 09.05.2025 and allocate costs to the association. Allow Rosehill’s appeal against the ruling and allocate its costs to the association too. Viru Maakohus will determine the amount after the final act enters into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Allow Osaühing Rosehill’s appeal against the ruling. 3. Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 3 korteriühistu shall bear the procedural costs of the appeal against the ruling.
Appeal
Case 2-22-11087Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 18 korteriühistu · 80015336

Apartment association meetings and decisionsBudget, management plan and ratesArticles of association and amendmentsDocuments and informationReporting and review of expenditureRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairsBasement, stairwell and shared roomsParking and grounds

How it started · editorial summary

Two applicants XX sought to set aside two owners’ decision items concerning accounting review and a management plan.

· Final ruling on an application challenging general meeting decisionsViru Maakohus (Narva) · First instance · № 2-22-11087/67Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kivilinna tn 18: two decisions set aside after reconsideration

Final ruling on an application challenging general meeting decisions · Viru Maakohus (Narva) · First instance

Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 18 korteriühistu · 80015336

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: two applicants — XX; interested person — Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 18 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

Two applicants XX sought to set aside two owners’ decision items concerning accounting review and a management plan.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Two applicants XX challenged items 3 and 4 of Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 18 korteriühistu’s owners’ decision of 31 May 2022. Voting took place without a meeting. Item 3 concerned choosing an accounting organisation to check documents and authorising the board to choose a proposal; item 4 concerned the 2022 management plan. The applicants alleged that transferring control functions conflicted with the articles’ audit committee provision. For the plan, they cited missing mandatory information on common property condition, intended works, reserves and projected service consumption. They also objected to insufficiently justified parking and basement electrical system costs. The act presents these as applicants’ arguments. The first ruling of 9 January 2025 granted the application, but Tartu Ringkonnakohus set it aside and remitted the case. The grounds were breach of the right to be heard and partly insufficient reasoning; the appeal did not end the dispute by finally rejecting the applicants’ claims. On reconsideration the association admitted the claims in full. On 27 August 2025, the court therefore again granted the application and set aside specifically items 3 and 4. This result rests on admission, not a fresh detailed assessment of every objection to the management plan. Of the applicants’ 1150 euros in costs, the agreed 800 euros was allocated to the association. The applicants bear the other 350 euros. Appeal was available within 15 days after service.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the application and set aside items 3 and 4 of the decision of 31.05.2022. Allocate 800 euros in costs to the association, with the remaining 350 euros left to applicants.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Grant the application. […] 2. Set aside items 3 and 4 of Kivilinna tn 18 korteriühistu’s apartment owners’ decision of 31.05.2022.
First instance
Case 2-22-14923Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Vestervalli tn 6 korteriühistu · 80170874

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesHeatingCalculation and allocation of heating chargesChanges to or disconnection from heatingApartment association meetings and decisionsArticles of association and amendmentsBudget, management plan and rates

How it started · editorial summary

The court granted owner XX’s request to recalculate maintenance and heating. The association did not substantiate exclusion of some premises from cost allocation.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-14923/25Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Vestervalli tn 6: court ordered recalculation of maintenance and heating charges

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Vestervalli tn 6 korteriühistu · 80170874

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant XX — owner; interested person — Narva linn, Vestervalli tn 6 korteriühistu; applicant’s representative XX; association’s representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

The court granted owner XX’s request to recalculate maintenance and heating. The association did not substantiate exclusion of some premises from cost allocation.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Owner XX obtained recalculation of charges from the apartment association Narva linn, Vestervalli tn 6. The court declared the maintenance and heating debt claimed against the owner absent as of 31 December 2024. The dispute concerned the floor area used to allocate common costs. The owner relied on the common ownership share and full premises area in the land register. The association excluded some non-residential premises and also accounted for some premises switching to independent heating. The applicant sought a declaration of no debt and an order to change the calculation. After clarification, the association accepted absence of maintenance debt but continued opposing the heating demands, relying on meeting decisions, articles and technical system features. The court examined the claims fully despite partial admission. For maintenance, the association did not prove a proper basis for allocating costs other than by common ownership shares. The court accepted the applicant’s calculation. For heating, it distinguished the ability to change the system from the basis for allocating costs afterwards. It did not find it proved that switching to independent heating itself required every owner’s consent. However, Vestervalli tn 6’s articles lacked sufficiently specific cost redistribution rules for this situation. The court did not accept meeting decisions as a substitute for the necessary agreement. It excluded another association’s articles as irrelevant to the dispute. The ruling of 30 June 2025 declared no maintenance debt of 724,07 euros or heating debt of 885,76* euros for August 2021 to December 2024 and ordered recalculation. Costs were allocated to the association, with the amount set separately. The court decided charges for that period, rather than awarding repayment of those sums to the applicant.

Outcome of this decision

Declare that applicant XX owes the association no maintenance debt of 724,07 euros or heating debt of 885,76* euros as of 31.12.2024 for August 2021 to December 2024. Require recalculation of those payments. Allocate costs to the association and determine the amount separately after entry into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
6. Narva linn, Vestervalli tn 6 korteriühistu shall 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 2-23-8817Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 27 korteriühistu · 80025238

Parking and groundsAllocation of parking spacesBarriers, permits and accessUse of shared landParking chargesApartment association meetings and decisionsVoting and representation

How it started · editorial summary

Owner XX obtained nullity of two parking decisions. The court linked the result to specific restrictions on owners’ rights, rather than a ban on all parking control.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-23-8817/10Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kangelaste prospekt 27: decisions on parking restrictions declared void

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 27 korteriühistu · AS Ühisteenused · 80025238 ·

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant XX – owner; interested person – Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 27 korteriühistu; applicant’s representative XX; association representative XX; AS Ühisteenused – operator named in the meeting decision

How it started · editorial summary

Owner XX obtained nullity of two parking decisions. The court linked the result to specific restrictions on owners’ rights, rather than a ban on all parking control.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court declared two parking decisions of the apartment association Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 27 without legal effect from adoption. In this case, restrictions affected the owners’ own right to use shared grounds and required their agreement, which was absent. Owner XX challenged approval of parking rules on 30 April 2019 and the decision of 17 April 2023 on enforcement of them. The rules provided one card per apartment, restricted parking without a card and some vehicle types, and allowed termination of the right of use. AS Ühisteenused was chosen to supervise for 30 euros per month, with the ability to demand contractual penalties. The association considered control arrangements ordinary building management approvable by majority. It relied on the applicant using a parking card and not challenging the earlier decision in time. It acknowledged that some restrictions required agreement but proposed retaining the rest. The court explained that an operator contract or card system may in themselves be ordinary management. Here, however, the rules restricted owners as well as outside vehicles: not all received cards, cardless parking was limited to an hour, and extra charges and penalties were provided. The court assessed the combined conditions as a substantial change in use of shared parking for which a meeting majority was insufficient. The 2019 rules were adopted as a single document, so the court did not preserve individual parts. The applicant’s card and earlier voting did not remove nullity. The alternative invalidation demand was not separately considered because the disputed decisions already lacked legal effect from adoption. The ruling of 13 March 2025 declared item 9 of the 2019 meeting decision and item 5 of the 2023 decision void. It awarded 1 071,40 euros in costs against the association with statutory interest after finality. Claimed costs were reduced because some representative time was excessive.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the application. Declare item 9 of the decision of 30.04.2019 approving parking rules and item 5 of the decision of 17.04.2023 organising supervision void. The association bears all costs; award applicant XX 1 071,40 euros and statutory interest on it from finality until performance.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
4. Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 27 korteriühistu shall bear all litigation costs.
First instance
Case 2-24-8672Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Energia tn 3 korteriühistu · 80189425

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

How it started · editorial summary

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

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

Separate act page

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

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

Narva linn, Energia tn 3 korteriühistu · 80189425

Entry into force has not been reverified

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

How it started · editorial summary

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

The dispute and the court’s decision

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

Outcome of this decision

Grant the application. Declare all decisions of the association’s repeat meeting of 10.04.2024 void. Impose all costs on the association and award applicant XX reimbursement of the 50-euro fee.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Declare it established that all decisions of the repeat general meeting of apartment owners of Narva linn, Energia tn 3 korteriühistu of 10 April 2024 are void.
First instance
Case 2-22-9792Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu · 80183173

Documents and informationInspection and copies of documentsReporting and review of expenditureContracts, loans and bank documentsApartment association meetings and decisionsVoting and representationBudget, management plan and rates

How it started · editorial summary

XX sought information, document access and a declaration that meeting resolutions did not exist; the association relied on earlier access, lack of specificity and expiry of the filing period.

· Court order on an application in non-contentious proceedingsViru Maakohus Jõhvi kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-22-9792/27Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

A. Puškini tn 65: information, documents and meeting resolutions

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

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu · 80183173

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — XX; Person concerned — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

XX sought information, document access and a declaration that meeting resolutions did not exist; the association relied on earlier access, lack of specificity and expiry of the filing period.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Applicant XX sought an order requiring Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu to provide information and access to documents about the building’s technical condition, planned works and expenditure. XX also sought a declaration that particular resolutions were not adopted at the meeting of 4 May 2022 and that a different plan was approved. XX argued that the association referred to expert materials but failed to supply them. The association said some documents were already accessible, others did not exist, the request was insufficiently specific and the court deadline had passed. Near the end, XX withdrew the declaration claim because proceedings had taken too long. On 18 February 2025, the court accepted that withdrawal and ended that part. It separately dismissed the information and document claim for missing the deadline under KrtS §45 as applicable to the 2022 request. Filing on 4 July 2022 was late whether the board’s reply was treated as refusal or no reply was assumed. The court therefore did not examine the request’s substantive merits. It explained that a fresh request could be made to the board, followed by the applicable court procedure. This did not deny owners any right to documents. XX was ordered to pay the association 1430.56* euros in costs, with late-payment interest from entry into force until payment. Legal costs were reduced by 244 euros for time spent producing documents during the case that neither XX sought as evidence nor the court required.

Outcome of this decision

Accept withdrawal of the declaration claim and end that part. Dismiss the information claim because the filing deadline had passed. Award 1430.56* euros in costs against XX, with late-payment interest from entry into force until payment.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Dismiss XX’s application to obtain information from Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu and inspect documents.
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