Skip to decisions
Žuk — ANTON и JELENA

Narva apartment associations Court decisions

The collection is growing. We explain decisions in accessible language. Browsing by subject helps readers study building management practice, explore similar situations and prevent conflicts.

Materials for studying practice. An editorial summary does not replace an individual legal assessment or promise a dispute outcome.

Subjects and subtopics

A subject describes the dispute; it does not establish a violation.

Additional parameters

Reset all
Case 2-25-19185Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Madise tn 6 korteriühistu · 80551777

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

How it started · editorial summary

The owner’s silence did not replace review of invoice grounds, payments and late-payment interest.

· Court orderViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-25-19185/6Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Madise tn 6: review of charges and partial recovery

Court order · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Madise tn 6 korteriühistu · 80551777

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, Madise tn 6 korteriühistu; person concerned — owner XX

How it started · editorial summary

The owner’s silence did not replace review of invoice grounds, payments and late-payment interest.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Madise tn 6 korteriühistu claimed management charges and late-payment interest from owner XX. The owner received the documents but did not respond. In non-contentious proceedings, the court independently examined the basis and amount: issuing invoices alone is insufficient. It established meeting resolutions setting rates, a valid management plan and supplier costs. Heating was allocated by floor area, water and gas by readings and supplier prices. A late increase for a new period was left unexamined because it followed the deadline and would require a fresh opportunity to respond. A separate application for the new period remains possible. The court checked allocation of two payments: without selection of a particular obligation, the statutory sequence applied, first costs and late-payment interest, then principal. Late-payment interest was checked using the exact statutory annual rate rather than the association’s rounded daily rates. Principal recovery was limited to the amount claimed although the calculated balance was higher. The original late-payment interest claim was partly refused; the remaining accrued late-payment interest and further statutory late-payment interest on unpaid principal from 22 August 2026 until payment were awarded. Costs were reduced from the 800 euros sought to 560 euros: a 50-euro fee and 510 euros for legal assistance. The late increase and some representative time were not reimbursed. The order does not establish performance of the award.

Outcome of this decision

The application was allowed in part; debt and late-payment interest were awarded and costs reduced. The late increase for a new period was left unexamined.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Allow in part the application of Narva linn, Madise tn 6 korteriühistu dated 12.11.2025.
First instance
Case 2-25-19226Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu · 80069939

Damage and insuranceLeaks and floodingCause and proof of damageAmount of compensationInsurance payment and insurer’s claimWater and seweragePipes, risers and sewerage

How it started · editorial summary

The court established leakage from a common system and the claim transferred to the insurer.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-25-19226/5Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 32: reimbursement of insured water damage

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

AB “Lietuvos draudimas“ · AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ Eesti filiaal · Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu · 110051834 · 12831829 · 80069939

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant and insurer — AB “Lietuvos draudimas“ through AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ Eesti filiaal; person concerned — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The court established leakage from a common system and the claim transferred to the insurer.

The dispute and the court’s decision

AB “Lietuvos draudimas“, through its Estonian branch, sought reimbursement from Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu of 1964 euros paid for water damage and late-payment interest. The association submitted no position, but the court examined evidence of insurance, payment, causation and the amount of damage. The water came from a defective common system: piping and a towel dryer installed by the association. Location inside an individual apartment does not exclude common ownership. The court found a breach of the maintenance duty and a causal link to the damage; no evidence excusing the breach was provided. Insurance payment transferred the owner’s claim to the insurer. The estimate established restoration costs; the mentioned equipment costs were outside the claim. The award was 1964 euros in damages and 117.42 euros in late-payment interest for 23 October 2025 to 25 May 2026, totalling 2081.42 euros. From 26 May 2026 statutory late-payment interest runs on principal until payment. A further 575 euros in costs was awarded with statutory late-payment interest from finality of the order quantifying costs until performance. Payment by the association was not established.

Outcome of this decision

The association was ordered to pay 2081.42 euros in damages and accrued late-payment interest, further late-payment interest on principal, and 575 euros in costs with separate late-payment interest.

A checked extract in this language is not yet available.

First instance
Case 2-20-144847Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 11 korteriühistu · 80545179

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsPayment accounting and set-offLate-payment interest and consequences of delayWater and sewerageCalculation of water chargesBills and justification of chargesMeters and readings

How it started · editorial summary

Water readings in the handover record changed part of the award, but a payment on earlier debt did not reduce this claim.

· Court orderViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-20-144847/25Read act

Separate act page

A company’s debt to an association and withdrawal of late-payment interest claim

Court order · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 11 korteriühistu · OÜ Peremaakler · 80545179 · 11523072

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 11 korteriühistu; Person concerned — OÜ Peremaakler

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought management and utility charges from OÜ Peremaakler. The appeal court later reduced the principal; the late-payment interest proceedings were discontinued following the association’s withdrawal.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 11 korteriühistu sought management, heating and water charges from OÜ Peremaakler for 01.02.2020–07.10.2021. Following the company’s objection, the dispute continued outside expedited payment-order proceedings. The final claim was 1,147.44 euros. The association withdrew its claim for late-payment interest. The company disputed water charges on the ground of no consumption and raised the treatment of proceeds from the property’s sale. The first-instance court checked invoices, readings, handover records and approved tariffs. It found that the company had provided no specific alternative calculation, while the association had proved the composition and allocation of costs. It found that 350 euros obtained in enforcement had been applied to an earlier debt awarded in another case, rather than the period at issue here. The first-instance court awarded the principal and discontinued the withdrawn late-payment interest claim. On 29 January 2026, Tartu Ringkonnakohus reduced the award to 1,117.62 euros: water charges of 29.82 euros did not match the handover-record readings. Crediting 350 euros against the earlier debt was left unchanged. Costs in both instances were allocated 97% to OÜ Peremaakler and 3% to the association, with the amount to be determined separately. Discontinuance of the withdrawn late-payment interest claim remained unchanged.

Outcome of this decision

The original award was 1,147.44 euros. On 29 January 2026, Tartu Ringkonnakohus reduced it to 1,117.62 euros and dismissed the claim for 29.82 euros. The withdrawn late-payment interest claim was discontinued. Costs in both instances were allocated 97% to the company and 3% to the association, with the amount to be fixed separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Accept the withdrawal by Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 11 korteriühistu of the claim for late-payment interest on the principal debt for 01 February 2020 to 07 October 2021 and discontinue the proceedings in respect of that claim.
First instance
· Court orderTartu Ringkonnakohtu tsiviilkolleegium · Appeal · № 2-20-144847/38Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Pähklimäe tn 11: water-charge correction on OÜ Peremaakler’s appeal

Court order · Tartu Ringkonnakohtu tsiviilkolleegium · Appeal

Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 11 korteriühistu · OÜ Peremaakler · 80545179 · 11523072

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 11 korteriühistu; person concerned and appellant against the order — OÜ Peremaakler; applicant representative — XX; company representatives — XX

How it started · editorial summary

Water readings in the handover record changed part of the award, but a payment on earlier debt did not reduce this claim.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 11 korteriühistu sought 1147.44 euros in management charges from OÜ Peremaakler for 1 February 2020 until ownership ended on 7 October 2021; the association withdrew late-payment interest. The company disputed water charges and allocation of a 350-euro receipt. It appealed the order after the first-instance court allowed the principal in full. The appellate court admitted additional documents permissible in support of such an appeal. Final water readings in the handover record were lower than those used in the invoices. The excess 29.82 euros was therefore refused, leaving an award of 1117.62 euros. The court upheld the other charges. The 350-euro receipt discharged an earlier obligation established by another court order; the balance of that debt was not the balance claimed here. Discontinuance of the late-payment interest claim remained in force. Costs in both instances were allocated 97% to OÜ Peremaakler and 3% to the association. The first-instance court will quantify costs after the order becomes final. Performance of the award was not established.

Outcome of this decision

The appeal against the order was allowed in part: the award was reduced to 1117.62 euros and 29.82 euros refused; costs were reallocated.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
4.2. Allow the application in part.
Appeal
Case 2-23-1406Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kraavi tn 14 korteriühistu · 80280195

Water and seweragePipes, risers and sewerageDamage and insuranceLeaks and floodingCause and proof of damageAmount of compensationInsurance payment and insurer’s claim

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer brought a transferred claim concerning a blockage in shared drainage; the association denied breach and pointed to a possible cause inside an apartment.

· Ruling on a damages demandViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-23-1406/7Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kraavi tn 14: liability for a blockage in shared drainage

Ruling on a damages demand · Viru Maakohus · First instance

AB “Lietuvos draudimas“ · AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ Eesti filiaal · Narva linn, Kraavi tn 14 korteriühistu · 110051834 · 12831829 · 80280195

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant, insurer — AB “Lietuvos draudimas“ through its Estonian branch AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ Eesti filiaal; interested person — Narva linn, Kraavi tn 14 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer brought a transferred claim concerning a blockage in shared drainage; the association denied breach and pointed to a possible cause inside an apartment.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Insurer AB “Lietuvos draudimas“, acting through its Estonian branch, sought reimbursement from Narva linn, Kraavi tn 14 korteriühistu of 1876 euros paid for apartment damage in flooding on 11 June 2022, plus interest and costs. It attributed the incident to a blockage in shared drainage and inadequate system maintenance. The association objected that pipes were sound and a foreign object or equipment inside an individual apartment, for which the owner was responsible, might have caused the blockage. It cited a later pipe survey and sought reduced compensation if necessary. The insurer replied that no particular object or owner action had been proved and several apartments were flooded. The court found a blockage in the shared sewer pipe itself. Inspection reports, photographs and explanations did not substantiate faulty individual equipment, and water entering through it did not mean the blockage originated there. A survey conducted much later showed pipe condition on another date, not proper inspection and cleaning before the incident. The association did not prove necessary measures or excusability of the breach. After payment, the owner’s claim passed to the applicant. The court found damage, causation and the association’s liability for maintaining common property proved. It refused to reduce compensation: victim contribution and exceptional unfairness of full compensation were not proved. On 3 July 2025, it awarded 1876 euros and 27,66 euros in interest as of 26 January 2023. Although its calculation produced higher interest, it stayed within the amount claimed. Under the operative part, further statutory interest runs from 27 January 2023 until payment. It also awarded 712 euros in costs, comprising 662 euros for legal assistance and a 50 euro fee, with interest on costs from entry into force.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the application: award 1876 euros in damages, 27,66 euros in accrued late-payment interest, further statutory late-payment interest from 27.01.2023, 712 euros in costs and late-payment interest on costs from entry into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Grant AB “Lietuvos draudimas“’s application for damages against Narva linn, Kraavi tn 14 korteriühistu.
First instance
Case 2-24-11128Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 10b korteriühistu · 80145534

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

How it started · editorial summary

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

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

Separate act page

Kangelaste prospekt 10b: the former owner’s arrears

Order awarding debt · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 10b korteriühistu · 80145534

Entry into force has not been reverified

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

How it started · editorial summary

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

The dispute and the court’s decision

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

Outcome of this decision

Award principal, accrued and further statutory late-payment interest on principal until payment against XX, plus 489 euros in costs with late-payment interest from entry into force. Retain the existing security for enforcement.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Allow the application.
First instance
Case 2-22-13958Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Uusküla tn 9 korteriühistu · 80180269

Water and seweragePipes, risers and sewerageDamage and insuranceLeaks and floodingCause and proof of damageAmount of compensationInsurance payment and insurer’s claim

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer sought reimbursement for a pipe rupture first from two owners XX, then alternatively from the Uusküla tn 9 association.

· Ruling granting the insurer’s demandViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-13958/16Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Uusküla tn 9 association ordered to reimburse 2 500 euros for a shared riser rupture

Ruling granting the insurer’s demand · Viru Maakohus · First instance

AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ · AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ Eesti filiaal · Narva, Uusküla tn 9 korteriühistu · 110051834 · 12831829 · 80180269

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant – AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ through its Estonian branch; two interested individuals XX – proceedings against them terminated; interested person – Narva, Uusküla tn 9 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer sought reimbursement for a pipe rupture first from two owners XX, then alternatively from the Uusküla tn 9 association.

The dispute and the court’s decision

AB „Lietuvos draudimas“, acting through its Estonian branch, initially sought 2 500 euros in insurance compensation paid for water damage on 26 June 2022 from two owners XX. The owners objected that the damaged pipe was shared property within the association’s responsibility. In August 2024, the insurer brought an alternative demand against Narva, Uusküla tn 9 korteriühistu. The association admitted the incident’s circumstances and agreed that the application should be granted: a shared hot-water riser had ruptured. The insurer then waived its demands against the individuals. The court accepted the waiver and ended proceedings concerning both owners; this is the procedural result of waiver, rather than a separate ruling that no possible owner liability existed. The court examined the demand against the association on its merits. It established that the pipe formed part of the shared system, the association’s duty to monitor its condition and keep it working, a link between breach and insured property damage, and payment of 2 500 euros. The rupture supported a presumption of breach of the maintenance duty; the association neither rebutted it nor proved the breach excusable. Following insurance payment, the corresponding claim passed to the insurer. The association was ordered to pay 2 500 euros and statutory late-payment interest from 27 August 2024. Of 594 euros claimed in costs, 512 euros was awarded: a 50-euro fee and 462 euros for assistance, excluding steps before the demand was made against the association. Interest on costs was also awarded after finality. The two owners’ costs were imposed on the insurer, but no specific reimbursement was set because they supplied no statement.

Outcome of this decision

Accept waiver of the application against two individuals XX and terminate proceedings concerning them. Grant the demand against the association: award 2 500 euros, statutory interest from 27.08.2024 until payment, and 512 euros in costs with interest after finality. Impose the individuals’ costs on the insurer, leaving the amount undetermined because reimbursement was not requested.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Grant the application by AB „Lietuvos draudimas“, through its Eesti filiaal, against Narva, Uusküla tn 9 korteriühistu for damages.
First instance
Case 2-20-5099Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 2 korteriühistu · 80158614

Damage and insuranceLeaks and floodingInsurance payment and insurer’s claimWater and seweragePipes, risers and sewerageApartment association bills, payments and debtsLimitation of claims

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer sought compensation for 2014 damage from owner XX or alternatively from the Pähklimäe tn 2 association; both pleaded limitation.

· Court orderViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-20-5099/30Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Pähklimäe tn 2: limitation of an insurer’s claim after water damage

Court order · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ · AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ Eesti filiaal · Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 2 korteriühistu · 110051834 · 12831829 · 80158614

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ through its Estonian branch; Person concerned, owner — XX; Person concerned — Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 2 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer sought compensation for 2014 damage from owner XX or alternatively from the Pähklimäe tn 2 association; both pleaded limitation.

The dispute and the court’s decision

AB „Lietuvos draudimas“, acting through its Estonian branch, sought reimbursement of an insurance payment from owner XX or alternatively from Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 2 korteriühistu. The claim concerned water damage on 12 January 2014 and a broken inlet valve that the insurer considered common property. Statutory late-payment interest from 31 January 2023 and costs were also sought. Both respondents pleaded limitation and disputed responsibility. The insurer argued that payment transferred the injured owner’s statutory claim, subject to a ten-year period. The owner also relied on preventive measures taken, while the association denied breaching its duties. The court agreed that the claim did not arise from the insurance contract. However, transfer preserved the injured owner’s legal position in relation to the association. The court treated those relations as analogous to transactions and applied a three-year, rather than ten-year, limitation period. It linked commencement to payment on 30 January 2014, expiry to 30 January 2017 and filing to 3 April 2020. The application against both respondents was therefore dismissed. The court also discussed conditions for compensation involving common property, but limitation was the decisive ground. The insurer bears costs; their amount is to be determined separately after entry into force of the principal ruling.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss the application against owner XX and the Pähklimäe tn 2 association. Order AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ to bear costs, to be quantified separately after the principal ruling enters into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Dismiss the application of AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ Eesti filiaal against XX and Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 2 korteriühistu for compensation for damage.
First instance
Case 2-22-17238Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 4 korteriühistu · 80339391

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsPayment accounting and set-offLate-payment interest and consequences of delayWater and sewerageCalculation of water chargesRepairs and shared propertyOrganisation and funding of repairs

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought management and utility debts with late-payment interest. XX disputed the calculation and crediting of payments. The court granted only part of the claim, excluding unproved water charges.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-17238/22Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Partial debt award: accounting for payments and proving water charges

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 4 korteriühistu · 80339391

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 4 korteriühistu; Person concerned — XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought management and utility debts with late-payment interest. XX disputed the calculation and crediting of payments. The court granted only part of the claim, excluding unproved water charges.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 4 korteriühistu sought unpaid management and utility charges and late-payment interest. XX challenged the calculation, alleged that payments had not been credited, and refused some maintenance and repair-fund charges without explanations of tariffs and evidence of work. The association repeatedly reduced its claim and acknowledged that some earlier payments had not been accounted for. The court examined invoices, bank records, tariff resolutions and supplier calculations. It rejected unilateral exclusion of maintenance and repair-fund contributions: they concerned the upkeep of the shared building, rather than only services actually used in a particular month. A separate entrance did not itself remove liability for common expenses. Differences between individual invoices were not considered sufficient proof of forgery. However, the court found the build-up of debt and allocation of payments difficult to follow. Part of the claim was proved, but some water charges lacked the necessary price information, supplier invoices, readings and calculation. The court excluded that part and granted the application in part. It awarded proved principal, accrued late-payment interest and continuing statutory late-payment interest from 17 November 2022 until the awarded principal is paid. Procedural costs were divided equally, with the amount to be determined separately.

Outcome of this decision

The application was granted in part: proved principal and late-payment interest were awarded, including continuing late-payment interest from 17 November 2022 until the awarded principal is paid. Unproved water charges were excluded. Each participant must bear 50% of the other’s costs; their amount will be determined separately after the order becomes final.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Grant the application of Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 4 korteriühistu in part.
First instance
Case 2-22-139489Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 10b korteriühistu · 80145534

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

How it started · editorial summary

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

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

Separate act page

Checking the basis of management charges

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 10b korteriühistu · 80145534

Entry into force has not been reverified

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

How it started · editorial summary

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

The dispute and the court’s decision

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

Outcome of this decision

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

A checked extract in this language is not yet available.

First instance
Case 2-23-2145Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu · 80183173

Water and seweragePipes, risers and sewerageDamage and insuranceLeaks and floodingCause and proof of damageAmount of compensationInsurance payment and insurer’s claimApartment association bills, payments and debtsLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer obtained an award for reimbursement of compensation paid for apartment damage. The court linked the damage to the condition of a shared water riser under the association’s management.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-23-2145/3Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

A. Puškini tn 65: association ordered to reimburse insurer for a shared riser leak

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu · AB Lietuvos draudimas · 80183173 · 110051834

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — AB Lietuvos draudimas, insurer; interested person — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu; owner XX — recipient of the insurance payment; insurer’s representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer obtained an award for reimbursement of compensation paid for apartment damage. The court linked the damage to the condition of a shared water riser under the association’s management.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court awarded AB Lietuvos draudimas 596 euros in damages and interest against the apartment association Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65. It linked the apartment damage to a leak in the shared water riser whose condition the association was obliged to monitor. The insurer compensated owner XX for ceiling damage after the leak and brought the transferred claim against the association for the amount paid. Evidence included the policy, damage notice, photographs, inspection report, repair estimate and payment order. The association received court materials but did not respond or object within the deadline. The court found the source of the water in the shared riser. Ordinary upkeep and repair of that part of the building are performed through the association. It found the riser’s condition improper and causation proved: if properly maintained, water would not have entered the insured apartment. The association supplied no evidence rebutting those findings or justifying breach of duty. The decision rests on assessment of the materials, not merely the absence of a response. The ruling of 3 March 2023 awarded 596 euros in compensation, 38 euros in accrued interest and further statutory interest on 596 euros from 8 February 2023 until performance. The insurer also sought the costs of applying to court. The court reduced reimbursable representative time: the case did not require the three and a half hours claimed. It awarded 290 euros in costs, comprising a 50 euro fee and 240 euros in legal assistance, with statutory interest after entry into force. The award does not confirm that the association has already transferred those sums.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the insurer’s application. Award 596 euros in damages, 38 euros in accrued interest and statutory interest on 596 euros from 08.02.2023 until performance against the association. Allocate costs to it; award 290 euros and statutory interest on costs after entry into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Order Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu to pay AB “Lietuvos draudimas“ 596 euros in damages and 38 euros in late-payment interest that has fallen due.
First instance
Case 2-21-112650Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Masina tn 3 korteriühistu · 80480764

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

How it started · editorial summary

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

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

Separate act page

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

Ruling · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

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

Entry into force has not been reverified

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

How it started · editorial summary

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

The dispute and the court’s decision

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

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss the appeal and uphold the ruling of 22 September 2021. Allocate appeal costs to OÜ Peremaakler, with the amount set later by the county court.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Dismiss the appeal against the ruling and uphold the Viru Maakohus ruling of 22 September 2021.
Appeal
Case 2-17-5112Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Rahu tn 28a korteriühistu · 80158560

Damage and insuranceLeaks and floodingCause and proof of damageInsurance payment and insurer’s claimWater and seweragePipes, risers and sewerageAccess for inspection and repairAmount of compensation

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer’s claim was granted; the judgment copy contains an operative part without circumstances or reasons.

Related prepared acts from this case are also shown.

· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohtu tsiviilkolleegium · Appeal · № 2-17-5112/13Read act

Separate act page

Rahu 28A: a leaking riser and the association’s response to denied access

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohtu tsiviilkolleegium · Appeal

AAS BTA Baltic Insurance Company Eesti filiaal · KORTERIÜHISTU RAHU 28A · 11223507 · 80158560

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and appellant — AAS BTA Baltic Insurance Company Eesti filiaal; defendant — KORTERIÜHISTU RAHU 28A

How it started · editorial summary

Denied access required examination of the association’s further steps to maintain the common riser.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KORTERIÜHISTU RAHU 28A (now — Narva linn, Rahu tn 28a korteriühistu). AAS BTA Baltic Insurance Company Eesti filiaal sought reimbursement of 1218 euros and 79 cents paid for water damage from KORTERIÜHISTU RAHU 28A. The parties did not dispute the leak from a valve on the common hot-water riser or the insurance payment. The association relied on owner XX having denied access during earlier repairs and disputed the amount of loss. The first-instance court dismissed the claim. The appellate court reversed and remitted the case to the preliminary stage. Having no right to enter without consent does not itself establish compliance with all duties to maintain common property. Further measures needed examination, including convening a meeting, taking decisions or other steps to address denied access. Failure to act may give rise to liability; the first-instance court also failed to justify excusing a possible breach. Important documents required Estonian translations even in simplified proceedings. The parties must have an opportunity to present evidence with the burden of proof properly allocated. If a breach is established, the compensation claim could have passed to the insurer following payment; association liability does not exclude liability of an owner who breached duties. The amount of loss had not been assessed and requires examination. The appeal was allowed in part; the first-instance court will allocate costs according to the new outcome.

Outcome of this decision

The dismissal was reversed and the case remitted to the preliminary stage; breach and the amount of loss remain to be established.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Allow the appeal in part.
Appeal
· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-5112/26Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Rahu 28a: association ordered to pay insurer 1 218,79 euros

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

AAS BTA Baltic Insurance Company Eesti filiaal · Narva linn, Rahu tn 28a korteriühistu · 11223507 · 80158560

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – AAS BTA Baltic Insurance Company Eesti filiaal; Defendant – Narva linn, Rahu tn 28a korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer’s claim was granted; the judgment copy contains an operative part without circumstances or reasons.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Viru Maakohus granted the claim by AAS BTA Baltic Insurance Company Eesti filiaal against Narva linn, Rahu tn 28a korteriühistu and awarded the insurer 1 218,79 euros in damages. It also awarded 425 euros in litigation costs against the association, which must bear its own costs as well. The judgment was made under the simplified procedure and gives the result without an account of the circumstances or reasons. The operative part describes recovery as a recourse claim: the insurer’s demand to be reimbursed for the damage amount. The text does not show what happened, what evidence was examined or what the association argued in response. The specific basis for its liability is therefore not set out here. The court did not grant separate leave to appeal but explained that an appeal was possible for substantial and clear errors in law or assessment of evidence. A participant first had to notify the court of an intention to appeal within ten days of service of the operative part. The court would then supplement the judgment with an account of the circumstances and reasons. The judgment does not establish actual payment of the awarded sums.

Outcome of this decision

Award the insurer 1 218,79 euros in damages and 425 euros in litigation costs against the association. The association bears its own costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Grant the claim.
First instance