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 2-22-11087Source: 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 2-23-8817Source: 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 2-22-670Source: 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 2-20-16862Source: 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 2-21-9037Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 16 korteriühistu · 80061872

Damage and insuranceCause and proof of damageParking and groundsUse of shared land

How it started · editorial summary

The car damage was accepted, but the court found no fault by the association in installing the warning post. The damages claim was dismissed.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-21-9037/19Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Võidu prospekt 16: court refused compensation after a collision with a warning post

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 16 korteriühistu · 80061872

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant XX – driver; defendant – Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 16 korteriühistu; parties’ representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

The car damage was accepted, but the court found no fault by the association in installing the warning post. The damages claim was dismissed.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court dismissed driver XX’s claim against the apartment association Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 16 for damage after striking a warning post in the courtyard. It accepted the car damage and its link to the collision but found that the association had exercised the required care. The claimant sought the 190-euro insurance excess, the part of repairs paid by the owner, plus accrued and continuing late-payment interest. XX alleged that the metal post installed beside a collapsed section of surfacing was hard to see and did not meet warning-sign requirements. The association objected that the post warned of a dangerous spot, had reflective strips and was visible in advance. The court considered the association’s liability as manager of the shared grounds. It separately examined property damage, causation, unlawfulness and fault. The fact that the post damaged the car did not complete that examination. From the photographs, the court considered the post sufficiently tall and visibly marked with reflective tape. A driver proceeding carefully through the courtyard could have seen it and stopped. In this case, the court considered that the rules cited by the claimant did not require a standard warning sign at that location. It found the association’s conduct consistent with expected care and did not establish the fault required for recovery. The court also refused to obtain courtyard video footage: the collision was undisputed, footage would not show visibility from inside the car and the association stated it no longer existed. The judgment of 4 March 2022 dismissed the entire claim and imposed costs on the claimant, with separate quantification. The court did not deny the car damage; refusal concerns the conditions for the association’s liability.

Outcome of this decision

Refuse to obtain the video recording and dismiss XX’s damages claim against the association in full. The claimant bears costs, to be quantified separately after the judgment becomes final.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Dismiss XX’s claim against Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 16 korteriühistu for damages in full.
First instance
Case 2-20-100537Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu · 80183301

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayParking and groundsConstruction of parking facilitiesApartment association meetings and decisionsBudget, management plan and rates

How it started · editorial summary

The participants confirmed payment of the principal claim, after which the association withdrew its application. The court approved a separate agreement for an additional 100 euros in costs.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-20-100537/18Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

P. Kerese tn 6: court approved a 100 euro costs agreement after debt payment

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu · 80183301

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu; interested person XX — debtor and party to the costs agreement; association’s representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

The participants confirmed payment of the principal claim, after which the association withdrew its application. The court approved a separate agreement for an additional 100 euros in costs.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court terminated the case after confirmed payment of the principal claim and approved an agreement for an additional 100 euros in costs to the association. The apartment association Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 sought debt and late-payment interest from participant XX. The dispute concerned earmarked contributions for a car park. After an objection in payment order proceedings, the case was transferred to Viru Maakohus. XX attempted a counter-application challenging transactions based on meeting decisions; admission was refused and the circuit court upheld that refusal. The association and XX then reported satisfaction of the claim on 17 March 2021. Their consistent reports stated that principal, late-payment interest and previously claimed costs had been paid. The association withdrew its monetary demand, and participants submitted a separate agreement on remaining court costs. Under that agreement, XX must pay the association an additional 100 euros by 31 May 2021. XX bears their own costs. The participants confirmed understanding the consequences of termination and waived appeal against the ruling. On 22 March 2021 the court accepted withdrawal of the application on the paid claim, approved the costs agreement and terminated proceedings. It found no conflict with the law or good morals. It did not separately allocate or determine recoverable costs because the amount and payment arrangements were already agreed. Principal and previously paid costs are not awarded again. The act does not confirm performance of the new 100 euro obligation.

Outcome of this decision

Accept the association’s withdrawal of the paid debt application. Approve the agreement: XX pays the association 100 euros in costs by 31.05.2021 and bears their own costs. Terminate proceedings; do not determine costs separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. Terminate proceedings in civil case No 2 -20-100537 on Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu’s debt application against XX.
First instance
Case 2-17-16823Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu · 80183301

Parking and groundsUse of shared landConstruction of parking facilitiesApartment association meetings and decisionsVoting and representation

How it started · editorial summary

Refusal to declare the parking decision void was upheld; land-use arrangements were not decided separately.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-17-16823/35Read act

Separate act page

Parking on green space: limits of a meeting resolution

Judgment · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu · 80183301

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — XX; Defendant — Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

XX sought nullity of a resolution to arrange parking behind the building. The court refused and stressed that the wording did not itself decide to build a parking area.

The dispute and the court’s decision

XX challenged the 13.04.2016 resolution of Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu to arrange parking on green space behind the building. XX considered it a material change in the shared land’s purpose requiring all owners’ consent. The association regarded resident parking as ordinary use. The court addressed nullity specifically and found no convening defect or other applicable ground. A possible breach of shared-property management rules did not itself make the resolution void. A separate claim for invalidation on other grounds was not determined here. Nor did the court find that the wording already meant construction of a parking area: paving, tree removal or other specific works were not identified. The materials did not prove a material change of purpose. The claim was dismissed and costs imposed on XX, with their amount to be determined separately. The act is not permission for any works and does not allocate individual parking spaces.

Outcome of this decision

The claim to declare the 13.04.2016 resolution void was dismissed. The court did not find that construction had already been approved. XX bears their own and the association’s costs, the latter to be fixed separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Dismiss XX’s claim against Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu to declare the general meeting resolution of 13.04.2016 void.
First instance
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-17-16823/53Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Kerese 6: meeting decision on parking not declared void

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu · 80183301

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and appellant – XX; Defendant – Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

Refusal to declare the parking decision void was upheld; land-use arrangements were not decided separately.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Tartu Ringkonnakohus dismissed XX’s appeal and upheld the refusal to declare the Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu meeting decision of 13 April 2016 void. Nullity would mean no legal effect from adoption; that specific demand was not granted. The meeting decided to organise car parking on the green area behind the building. The claimant considered this construction of a car park involving tree felling and concreting, requiring all owners’ consent. She also relied on the lack of the necessary quorum. The association objected that organising parking was ordinary use of the land around the building and could be decided by majority. The circuit court considered that the wording adopted was not yet a decision to build a car park and substantially alter the intended use of shared property. The claimant had not demonstrated grounds for nullity under the provisions on general meeting decisions. The court also stated that breach of co-owner consent rules does not itself make a meeting decision void. The circuit court nevertheless corrected one first-instance argument. A court may and must check whether a statutory prohibition making the decision void was breached; it cannot confine itself to the label given to the demand. In this case, however, that examination did not change the outcome. The claimant had not brought a demand against the other owners to determine arrangements for use of the shared land, including tree felling. The first-instance costs allocation was upheld, and appeal costs were imposed on the claimant. The county court will quantify them separately. The judgment concerns the specific meeting wording and ground of nullity raised; no separate demand on land-use arrangements was determined here.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss XX’s appeal and leave the Viru Maakohus judgment of 8 June 2018 unchanged. Retain the previous costs allocation; the claimant bears appeal costs, to be quantified by the county court.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Leave the Viru Maakohus judgment of 8 June 2018 unchanged.
Appeal
Case 3-18-1159Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 7 korteriühistu · 80189247 · Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 9 korteriühistu · 80289285

Parking and groundsBarriers, permits and access

How it started · editorial summary

The administrative court returned the complaint: the commission’s documents created no binding rules for outside persons.

· RulingTartu Halduskohus · First instance · № 3-18-1159/12Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Võidu 9: traffic scheme complaint returned — dispute belongs in civil proceedings

Ruling · Tartu Halduskohus · First instance

Korteriühistu Võidu 9 Narva · Narva Linnavalitsus · KÜ Võidu 7 · · ·

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Complainant — Korteriühistu Võidu 9 Narva; Authority whose documents were challenged — Narva Linnavalitsus and its traffic safety commission; Other association mentioned in the road dispute — KÜ Võidu 7

How it started · editorial summary

The administrative court returned the complaint: the commission’s documents created no binding rules for outside persons.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Tartu Halduskohus returned the apartment association Võidu 9 Narva’s complaint against city traffic safety commission decisions and a response from Narva Linnavalitsus. It found that the documents were not binding administrative acts and a dispute over use of a private road fell outside administrative court jurisdiction. The association sought annulment of item 5 of the commission decision of 1 August 2017, item 2 of the decision of 7 February 2018 and the city government’s response to an objection of 11 May 2018. It initially also sought restoration of the earlier traffic scheme between Võidu 7 and Võidu 9. It argued that the courtyard road lay on two private plots and the commission had disregarded its rights. The city government objected that the administrative court could not hear such a dispute. The court found that commission minutes had no direct binding effect on outside persons. The city government’s response merely explained that status and therefore was not subject to annulment as an administrative act either. The court considered that private parties’ road use and property access issues should be resolved by agreement or civil litigation. Narva linn did not own the private roads identified or bear responsibility for their upkeep. Returning the complaint did not establish a final traffic arrangement between plots or require the city to restore the earlier scheme.

Outcome of this decision

Return the complaint in the administrative case because the administrative court lacks jurisdiction to resolve this dispute.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Return the complaint in administrative case No 3-18-1159.
First instance
Case 2-17-1555Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu · 80183301

Parking and groundsConstruction of parking facilitiesUse of shared landBarriers, permits and accessApartment association meetings and decisionsVoting and representationConvening meetings and advance noticeAgenda and minutes

How it started · editorial summary

Owner XX did not obtain a declaration that the December parking decision was void. The appeal court did not examine the new dispute over the April decision on its merits.

· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-17-1555/38Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Kerese 6: parking decision not declared void; new demand on appeal left unexamined

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 6 korteriühistu · 80183301

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and appellant XX – owner; defendant – apartment association; parties’ representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

Owner XX did not obtain a declaration that the December parking decision was void. The appeal court did not examine the new dispute over the April decision on its merits.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The circuit court upheld the refusal to declare the apartment association Kerese 6 parking decision of 20 December 2016 void. It left the demand concerning a separate decision of 13 April 2016 unexamined because no such demand had been made at first instance. Owner XX challenged approval of the parking project, tree felling and pruning, and installation of road signs. He argued that creating parking on a green area required all owners’ consent, whereas decisions were made by majority. The association objected that parking had already been approved and the December decisions merely organised the works. The appeal court disagreed with that explanation: the April decision was too indefinite to count as a construction decision. It was the December project that specified the future parking area and tree works. This did not, however, justify granting the demand made. The owner sought a declaration of nullity, meaning no legal effect from adoption, rather than an alternative order invalidating an unlawful decision. The court considered that an alleged breach of co-owner consent rules did not itself cause nullity. The materials also did not establish a change in the plot’s intended use substantial enough to require the provision cited by the claimant. The court found no other grounds for nullity, including a proven breach of convening requirements. The court did not allow a separate challenge to the April decision to be added on appeal. Appeal costs were imposed on the claimant; the first-instance court will quantify them separately. The court applied the rules in force when the meeting decisions were adopted in 2016; its findings concern the demand made and those materials.

Outcome of this decision

Uphold the first-instance judgment of 30.08.2017. Leave the appeal concerning nullity of the meeting decision of 13.04.2016 unexamined and dismiss the rest. Claimant XX bears appeal costs, to be quantified separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Dismiss XX’s appeal in all other respects.
Appeal
Case 2-15-18123Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 19 korteriühistu · 80021192

Apartment association meetings and decisionsConvening meetings and advance noticeArticles of association and amendmentsBudget, management plan and ratesApartment association board and managementElection and replacement of the boardParking and groundsConstruction of parking facilities

How it started · editorial summary

The court approved the agreement between Narva linn and the association on nullity of the listed meeting decisions and reimbursement of costs; proceedings were terminated.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-18123/43Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kangelaste 19: court approved city and association’s agreement on nullity of meeting decisions

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn · Narva Linnaelamu · Kangelaste pr 19 korteriühistu · · 11129843 · 80021192

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — Narva linn through Narva Linnaelamu; defendant — apartment association; parties’ representatives XX; former management board chair XX

How it started · editorial summary

The court approved the agreement between Narva linn and the association on nullity of the listed meeting decisions and reimbursement of costs; proceedings were terminated.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court approved an agreement between Narva linn, acting through Narva Linnaelamu, and the apartment association Kangelaste pr 19 and terminated the case. The city challenged the association’s general meeting decision of 20 June 2015, seeking a finding of nullity, meaning absence of legal effect, or alternatively to have it set aside. Under the agreement, the association accepted that the meeting decisions of 11 February 2016 electing a board, choosing an audit firm, confirming the meeting decision of 20 June 2015 and amending the articles were void because the convening procedure had been breached. The agreement also lists related decisions on reporting, the management plan, board activities and membership, moving a playground and building a parking area, which the parties acknowledged as void. The court checked that the agreement did not conflict with the law, good morals or the public interest. The association undertook to reimburse the city a 150 euro fee and 1100 euros in legal assistance costs. The court additionally ordered a refund to the city of 150 euros of the fee paid, payable after the ruling enters into force. The parties waived appeals. If the agreement is not performed, the creditor may apply to a bailiff; the act contains no information on actual performance.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement on nullity of the listed general meeting decisions and terminate proceedings. The association undertakes to reimburse the city a 150 euro fee and 1 100 euros in legal costs. The court ordered a further 150 euros in fees refunded to the city from the budget after entry into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Terminate the proceedings in the case.
First instance
Case 2-14-9883Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 4 korteriühistu · 80145451

Parking and groundsUse of shared landDocuments and informationInspection and copies of documentsApartment association meetings and decisions

How it started · editorial summary

The appeal succeeded in part: the provision charging 5 euros per page was declared void, while the general parking rules remained in place.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-9883/28Read act

Separate act page

Shared parking rules and charges for paper copies

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Korteriühistu Kangelaste 4 · 80145451

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: XX — claimant, association member; Association — defendant

How it started · editorial summary

General parking rules differ from allocating individual spaces. The later appeal upheld dismissal concerning parking but declared the 5-euro-per-page copy charge void; reimbursement of reasonable actual costs remains possible.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Korteriühistu Kangelaste 4 (now — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 4 korteriühistu). XX challenged two decisions of Korteriühistu Kangelaste 4: parking rules and a charge of 5 euros per page for paper copies. The court distinguished allocating specific spaces from general rules allowing use of any free space subject to markings and prohibitions, finding this ordinary use of common land. It held that the copy charge did not prevent inspection or electronic access. Later, on 29 January 2016, Tartu Ringkonnakohus declared the 5-euro-per-page copy-charge provision void as unjustifiably high, while upholding dismissal of the challenge to the parking rules. Reasonable actual copying costs may be reimbursable. The 140-euro costs award was set aside; each party bears its own costs in both instances.

Outcome of this decision

Initially, the claim was dismissed and XX was ordered to pay the association 140 euros in costs. On 29 January 2016, Tartu Ringkonnakohus declared the 5-euro-per-page copy-charge provision void while upholding dismissal concerning the parking rules. The 140-euro award was set aside; each party bears its own costs in both instances.

A checked extract in this language is not yet available.

First instance
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-14-9883/49Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Kangelaste 4: copying fee struck down, general parking rules upheld

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ Kangelaste 4 · 80145451

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and appellant – owner XX; Defendant – KÜ Kangelaste 4

How it started · editorial summary

The appeal succeeded in part: the provision charging 5 euros per page was declared void, while the general parking rules remained in place.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Owner XX challenged two items in the association’s general meeting decision of 5 December 2013: parking rules and a fee of 5 euros for each page of a document copy. The first-instance court rejected both claims. The appeal court changed the judgment on copying fees. The parking rules did not allocate specific spaces to owners but laid down general requirements for parking and drivers’ conduct. The court treated them as ordinary management of shared property, for which a majority vote was sufficient. The refusal to invalidate those rules was upheld. The court considered the charge of 5 euros per page unjustifiably high and contrary to good morals: for a request involving many pages, it could impede access to information about the association’s management. It declared the corresponding meeting decision item void, meaning legally invalid. This does not mean that the association must supply every copy free of charge. The court allowed a reasonable per-page fee and a separate one-off fee to cover other copying costs. The previous costs award of 140 euros against XX was set aside; each party was left to bear its own costs at both levels.

Outcome of this decision

Set aside the dismissal of the copying claim and declare item 5 of the meeting decision of 5 December 2013 void. Uphold the rest of the judgment. Each party bears its own costs at both levels.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Allow the appeal in part.
Appeal