Constant parties at an Airbnb

Short answer

Other residents do not have to tolerate constant party noise. The most effective approach is to act on three fronts at once: document the disturbances, require the owner and apartment association to address them, and report disruptive parties to the police and accommodation platform.

The main conclusions from the case law are:

• An apartment owner must also ensure that guests and temporary occupants behave appropriately. Saying “I am not there myself” does not release the owner from this obligation.
• Requiring noise to stop and banning all short-term letting are different matters. The former can often be justified; the latter requires a separate legal basis.
• Evidence must show specific incidents, their recurrence and their effect on residents. A general claim that “they party there all the time” may be insufficient in court.
• Persistent, serious disturbances can ultimately justify a demand that the apartment be sold. This requires a properly adopted owners' resolution and generally court proceedings.
• If the disturbances actually cease, the grounds for requiring a sale may disappear. This remedy protects neighbours rather than punishing past conduct.

What can you do in practice?

1. Call the police when serious disturbance is taking place

If quiet hours are currently being disturbed and police intervention is needed, call 112. If there are threats, violence or a fire risk, avoid confronting the partygoers yourself. Emergency Response Centre guidance

In an apartment, continuous or repeated noise that significantly disturbs another person is prohibited:

• ordinarily between 22:00 and 06:00;
• on a night preceding a day off, between 00:00 and 07:00.

Disturbance is assessed objectively, rather than solely by one person's particular sensitivity. These hours do not mean that neighbours can be disturbed without limit during the day: an owner's duty to avoid effects exceeding ordinary apartment use also applies during daytime. KorS § 56(2) and § 57; KrtS § 31(1)(1)–(2)

2. Keep a joint disturbance diary

For each incident, record:

• the date and start and end times;
• what could be heard or seen and where it came from;
• how it prevented sleep or use of the apartment;
• who experienced it directly;
• whether the police attended and the outcome.

Keep recordings of noise heard in your own apartment, correspondence with the owner and association board, and, where necessary, a screenshot of the accommodation listing. Recordings help when the origin and timing of the noise can also be established. Do not publish them on social media; retain them to resolve the matter.

A police call-out does not automatically prove a violation, but together with witnesses, recordings and police observations it can form a strong body of evidence. The decisions below show both the success of such evidence and the weakness of vague complaints.

3. Send a demand to the owner and association board

The central request should be an end to repeated disturbance, rather than simply expressing disapproval of short-term letting. Include specific incidents and ask the owner to explain the measures they will take: for example, explaining a no-party rule to guests, appointing a local contact and preventing disruptive bookings.

The owner must ensure that apartment users comply with the duty not to disturb neighbours and must arrange management of the apartment while absent. KrtS § 31(4)–(5)

For example:

Loud music and shouting came from the apartment on [dates and times], preventing neighbours from sleeping. Please stop the repeated disturbances and inform us within seven days what measures you will take to prevent recurrence. We attach a list of incidents and the available evidence.

Seven days is a suggested response period here, not a statutory deadline.

4. Report the disturbance to the accommodation platform

The platform offers a way for neighbours to report disturbances. Include the listing and descriptions of the incidents. Platform rules prohibit disruptive gatherings, and repeated or serious violations may result in suspension or removal of the listing. That outcome is not guaranteed, however, and does not replace police or judicial remedies. Neighbourhood disturbance reporting; The platform's policy against disturbances

5. If a warning does not help, seek a court order to stop the disturbance

An affected apartment owner or the apartment association can bring the claim. The legal basis is the right to require use of the apartment in accordance with the law and valid agreements, and avoidance of effects exceeding ordinary use. KrtS § 30(2) and (4) and § 31(1)(1)

Such disputes between apartment owners are generally determined in proceedings on petition. In an urgent case, interim relief can also be sought; the application must explain why a temporary restriction is necessary during the proceedings. TsMS § 613(1)(1), § 616 and § 477¹

A majority vote in the association does not, by itself, confer an unlimited right to ban all short-term letting. A general letting restriction requires separate assessment of the law, owners' agreements and the justification for the restriction. KrtS § 13(1), § 17(2) and § 30(1)(1)

6. If necessary, involve the municipality and prepare a demand for disposal

If the apartment is effectively used as accommodation or an event venue, ask the municipality to check whether its actual use corresponds to its use permit and designated purpose. Short-term letting alone does not automatically establish a breach of the designated use. EhS § 16(2) and § 130(2)(4)–(5)

If serious disturbances continue, the apartment owners can decide by majority vote to demand disposal of the apartment ownership. The intention to decide this must be clearly stated on the general meeting's agenda. If the owner does not dispose of the apartment within three months, the association or at least one owner may bring an action; the three-month wait is unnecessary if the owner expressly refuses. The action must be brought before one year has passed since the demand was made. KrtS § 32(1)–(3) and § 33(1)–(3)

This does not mean that the board can evict guests or take away the apartment itself. If you are a tenant, involve your landlord in matters concerning the general meeting and disposal demand.

Case law: 10 important decisions

Not all the following cases concern short-term accommodation. Their relevance lies in explaining disturbance of neighbours, owners' obligations, evidence and the limits of remedies. Older decisions applied the former Apartment Ownership Act; present-day claims must be brought under the current KrtS.

1. An owner cannot avoid responsibility by saying that someone else caused the noise

Harju County Court, 17 November 2023 — 2-23-7188, particularly paragraphs 28 and 30–38.

Loud impacts, drilling-like sounds and loud music had come from an apartment for years. After an earlier obligation to sell, the apartment had been transferred to the disruptive occupant's own company, but the disturbance continued. The court ordered the new owner to dispose of the apartment through a public auction conducted by a bailiff without a further period for voluntary compliance, and awarded the association €6480.01 in procedural costs.

The court stressed that it did not matter whether the sounds were caused by the owner's representative or another apartment user: the owner must ensure proper behaviour by users even when absent. This is particularly relevant here — a demand should also be directed to the apartment owner, rather than starting a new argument with each changing group of guests. A merely formal change of owner does not resolve continuing disturbance.

2. Systematic noise can justify an obligation to sell

Harju County Court, 22 October 2021 — 2-21-253, particularly paragraphs 33–36.

Residents complained of loud bass, banging on the floor and persistent knocking during both daytime and nighttime. The police confirmed 24 call-outs, and the court assessed witness testimony and audio and video recordings. It ordered the owner to dispose of the apartment, allowed 30 calendar days after the judgment became final for a voluntary sale, and awarded €1695 in procedural costs.

The owner's assertion that they were merely responding to other people's noise was not proved and did not justify the conduct. The decision shows that what matters is not only breach of quiet hours, but the duration, recurrence and impact of disturbances on apartment use. Recordings combined with witnesses and police records were much more persuasive than general complaints alone.

3. Prolonged noise and dangerous behaviour can justify a forced sale

Harju County Court, 29 April 2021 — 2-18-15139, particularly paragraphs 5–7 of the reasoning.

An owner and a family member living with them had disturbed neighbours for years with shouting, nighttime music and stamping. There were also objects thrown from the balcony and other aggressive acts. Witnesses, police records and a previous misdemeanour decision supported the evidence of disturbance. The court ordered disposal of the apartment within 30 days after the judgment became final; the association could then seek enforcement by a bailiff. €1965 in procedural costs was awarded.

The court considered it important that the behaviour continued despite previous intervention and seriously affected residents' sleep, quality of life and sense of security. For your situation, this means that if parties also involve threats, rubbish being thrown or other dangerous acts, these should be documented separately. However, the circumstances in that case were substantially more serious than a single noisy gathering.

4. Vague complaints are insufficient even with a unanimous resolution

Tartu Circuit Court, 31 October 2022 — 2-21-18842, particularly paragraphs 8–13.

An association sought disposal of an apartment, referring, among other things, to noisy groups and fouling of the stairwell. The claim failed: the written statements did not sufficiently establish when the violations occurred or who left waste in the stairwell. The circuit court upheld the county court's judgment and awarded the owner €420 in appeal costs against the association.

The court explained that even unanimous support for a sale does not replace the substantive requirements for a disposal claim. Failure to challenge the resolution also does not prevent the owner from arguing in court that there was no serious violation. The practical lesson is to gather dated evidence connected to the specific apartment, rather than only signatures on a general statement of dissatisfaction.

5. If the disturbance stops, the grounds for a sale claim may disappear

Tartu County Court, 28 March 2019 — 2-17-19278, particularly paragraph 11.1 and the reasoning on procedural costs.

Persistent shouting and banging on walls came from a neighbour's apartment. The court found that earlier serious disturbance was proved, considering, among other evidence, 41 police and ambulance call-outs, witnesses and an audio recording. During the proceedings, however, the occupant's condition and behaviour improved, and serious disturbances subsided for at least several months. The court dismissed the disposal claim and left each party to bear its own costs.

The court assessed the situation at the time of its decision, rather than relying only on past violations. In your case, if the owner changes the letting arrangements and the parties actually stop, a demand to sell may no longer be justified. The purpose is to restore peaceful living, not to punish the owner; nevertheless, a single quiet weekend does not automatically establish a lasting solution.

6. A disposal demand must be clearly identified on the general meeting's agenda

Tallinn Circuit Court, 23 September 2024 — 2-23-5701, particularly paragraphs 13–14 and 19.

The meeting notice's agenda mentioned an owner's arrears and disruptive activities, but the meeting decided to demand disposal of their apartment ownerships. 24 of the 25 members present voted in favour. Nevertheless, the court found that the agenda as worded did not make a decision on a disposal demand foreseeable. The resolution was void, and the association was ordered to pay €1062.50 in costs of the appeal against the order.

“Discussing disruptive activities” may mean a warning, a demand to end the violation or other steps, rather than necessarily preparing a forced sale. If your association reaches the stage of demanding disposal, this must be expressly stated in the notice and agenda, and the decision-making procedure properly documented. A large majority does not automatically cure a defective agenda.

7. A claim can fail because of improper decision-making despite proved disturbance

Harju County Court, 6 February 2008 — 2-06-2793, the court's reasoning, particularly the discussion of decision-making powers.

An association sought disposal of an apartment, relying, among other things, on dogs howling continuously. The court found that prolonged howling significantly disturbed use of the other apartments. Nevertheless, the action was dismissed because the board and a meeting of representatives had acted instead of a proper general meeting of apartment owners adopting the resolution. The association bore all procedural costs.

The court also distinguished a decision to require the owner to dispose of the apartment from a mere decision to go to court. Although the decision applied the former legislation, its practical lesson remains relevant: a board letter or decision does not replace the apartment owners' resolution required by KrtS. Your association needs to prepare both the evidence and the correct decision-making procedure.

8. The court must assess the substance of the violation, not just the form of the minutes

Supreme Court, 27 November 2007 — 3-2-1-110-07, particularly paragraphs 11–14.

An association relied on repeated drinking parties, evening and nighttime shouting, loud music and dangerous incidents. The circuit court had dismissed the disposal claim, but the Supreme Court set aside that judgment and remitted the case. The Supreme Court did not itself finally order the apartment to be sold.

It stressed that the court must analyse all the circumstances and evidence concerning the violation. The absence of an exact statutory reference or a complete list of allegations in the general meeting's minutes is not, by itself, sufficient to dismiss the claim; the owner must nevertheless know the allegations. In your case, this supports the importance of specific incidents and earlier warnings, but does not release the association from adopting a proper resolution.

9. Ending activity contrary to designated use is a separate remedy from a noise claim

Supreme Court, 17 June 2015 — 3-2-1-3-15, particularly paragraphs 13–18.

A dance studio operated below residential premises even though the use permit specified other purposes. The Supreme Court upheld, against the owners of the premises, a prohibition on holding dance classes and allowing third parties to use the premises for that purpose. It did not prohibit every activity connected with organising dance classes, and the claim against the entity organising the activity was left unexamined.

The court distinguished the earlier claim to limit noise from the claim to stop activity inconsistent with the designated use. It also stressed that designated-use assessments must consider the actual building-related effects and impact on neighbours. Applied cautiously to your situation, the designated use of a persistent party venue is worth checking, but this judgment does not automatically prohibit every apartment's short-term letting.

10. An ongoing accommodation business may conflict with the plan and designated use

Tallinn Administrative Court, 22 January 2026 — 3-23-2913, particularly paragraphs 10–19.

A summer cottage on residential land was let as a whole through platforms as a holiday home. The municipality required its use to be brought into line with the permitted purpose. The owner then claimed €864 in direct loss and €12,077.38 in lost income, a total of €12,941.38, plus late-payment interest. The court dismissed the action, finding the enforcement order lawful; each party bore its own procedural costs.

The decisive factors were the particular spatial plan, the cottage's use as an ongoing holiday-home business, and the fact that it was neither a guest apartment nor home accommodation. The owner's responsibility was not removed because another person organised the accommodation. This lower-court decision cannot be generalised into a ban on letting all apartments, but it shows that neighbours can ask the municipality to inspect the actual use as well as pursuing remedies for noise.

In your situation, I would begin with a joint disturbance diary, police intervention and a written demand to the owner. If the partying continues, the next objective is a specific requirement to stop the disturbance; an obligation to sell remains a last resort. The lower-court decisions discussed above should not be assumed to be final solely on the basis of this overview.