Challenging a parking fine

Three main reasons recur in the case law for a private parking operator losing a contractual penalty claim:

1. The parking contract or contractual penalty term has not been properly proved: for example, the terms are unclear or the photographs do not show the rules in force at the time of the breach.
2. The breach or the particular defendant's liability has not been proved: parking was actually paid for or registered, or the claim was brought against someone who did not park the car.
3. The claim is too late: it is time-barred, or notice of the contractual penalty claim was not given within a reasonable time.

Below are ten cases illustrating these reasons. They are recurring grounds, not a statistically verified ranking by frequency. I cover contractual penalties in private car parks, rather than municipal late-payment parking charges or misdemeanour fines.

1. A binding contract or penalty term remains unproved

A contractual penalty requires a contract and a penalty agreement incorporated into it. The person parking must have had an opportunity to read the terms; unexpected or incomprehensible standard terms may not become part of the contract. Law of Obligations Act, § 9(1), § 37(1), (3) and § 158(1).

Tartu Circuit Court, 31 March 2025 — 2-23-129926, paragraphs 8–13. The operator claimed a €20 contractual penalty and €20 in collection costs. The parking terms in force at the time of the breach could not be established from the photographs submitted. Later photographs showed changed terms, including a free parking period.

The court dismissed the entire claim and ordered the operator to pay €820 in procedural costs. The important conclusion is that a later or unreadable photograph of a sign does not automatically prove which terms applied on the day of parking.

Viru County Court, 16 February 2026 — 2-25-107509, paragraphs 5–8. At the car park entrance there were a no-parking sign, a private car park sign and an exception for permit holders. The parking terms were illegible in the operator's photographs, and it was not possible to verify whether the separately submitted terms matched those displayed on site.

The court dismissed the claims for the unpaid €20 portion of the penalty, collection costs and late-payment interest. A binding contractual penalty agreement had not been proved in this case. The fact that the person parking had paid half of the original €40 penalty did not remedy that deficiency.

Supreme Court, 21 February 2024 — 2-22-100795, paragraphs 12–13.4. The operator claimed a €30 contractual penalty and €10 in collection costs because a vehicle in an apartment building's parking area had no parking card on the dashboard. However, as a person using an apartment property, the person parking had a statutory right to use the parking area.

The Supreme Court dismissed the operator's appeal against the order, leaving the dismissal of the claim in place. A parking card system can generally be introduced by majority vote, but the absence of a card does not in itself remove a lawful right to park or mean that a new parking contract has been concluded. Making that right conditional on a card requires an agreement between the apartment owners. Apartment Ownership and Apartment Associations Act, § 30(1)(2), (3) and § 35(1).

2. The breach or the correct debtor remains unproved

The operator generally has to prove the facts on which the claim is based. It is important to distinguish the assertion “there was no parking disc” from “parking was not registered by any permitted method”. Code of Civil Procedure, § 230(1).

Tallinn Circuit Court, 20 December 2024 — 2-24-117333, paragraphs 9.2–10. The operator claimed a €20 contractual penalty and €20 in collection costs, plus late-payment interest. There was no parking disc in the car, but the start of parking could also be registered at a terminal. The vehicle registration numbers in the submitted terminal log had been redacted.

The court dismissed the action and ordered the operator to pay €100 in procedural costs. A photograph of a car without a parking disc did not prove a breach, because the operator had not proved that parking had also not been registered electronically.

Harju County Court, 2 June 2025 — 2-24-143218, paragraphs 23–28. The person parking had paid through mobile parking but used the same vehicle's previous registration number. Registry data confirmed the change of number and that the old number was not assigned to any other vehicle at the time of parking.

The court dismissed the claims for a €40 contractual penalty, €30 in collection costs and late-payment interest. The parking fee had actually been paid, and the operator had not proved a basis for imposing a penalty for this particular error. However, the judgment does not mean that every registration number error always removes liability.

Harju County Court, 2 June 2026 — 2-25-128333, paragraphs 11–17. Parking had been registered at a terminal inside the building. The operator nevertheless argued that parking in the particular visitor space required registration at a different reception desk. The small-print instruction on site did not specify which reception desk it meant.

The court dismissed the claims for a €40 contractual penalty, €40 in collection costs and late-payment interest. The additional requirement had not been communicated clearly enough to the person parking; any doubt had to be interpreted against the party using the terms. Law of Obligations Act, § 39(1).

Tartu County Court, 20 May 2026 — 2-25-114842, paragraphs 7–9.2. The operator claimed a €55 contractual penalty from the car's owner. However, a call log and correspondence with the operator showed that the owner's spouse had parked the car. The owner rebutted the presumption that they were a party to the parking contract.

The action was dismissed. A reasonable opportunity to read the terms had also not been proved: only two minutes elapsed between parking and the penalty being issued. On 30 July 2026, Tartu Circuit Court refused to admit the operator's appeal, agreeing with both grounds. 2-25-114842, paragraphs 9–10. Simply saying “I was not driving” may not be enough; in this case, the assertion was supported by evidence.

3. The claim or notification of it comes too late

There are two separate grounds here:

• Limitation: a contractual penalty claim generally becomes time-barred after three years; the court applies limitation at the debtor's request. General Part of the Civil Code Act, § 143, § 146(1) and § 147(1).
• Late notification: the operator loses the right to claim a contractual penalty if it does not give notice within a reasonable time after discovering the breach. This can happen even before the limitation period expires. Law of Obligations Act, § 159(2).

Tallinn Circuit Court, 21 February 2025 — 2-24-125117, paragraphs 11–13. The operator claimed a €40 contractual penalty, €30 in collection costs and late-payment interest. Based on the payment deadline established by the court, the three-year limitation period expired on 4 June 2024, but the payment order application was not filed until 3 July 2024.

The court dismissed the entire claim and ordered the operator to pay €100 in procedural costs. The late-payment interest and collection cost claims were time-barred along with the main claim.

Tallinn Circuit Court, 15 May 2024 — 2-22-130765, paragraphs 25–35. A €15 contractual penalty was initially claimed from someone who had not actually parked the car. The claim was directed against the correct defendant only after the limitation period had expired.

The court dismissed the contractual penalty claim: bringing proceedings against the wrong person had not suspended limitation against the actual debtor. In the later dispute over procedural costs, the amount payable by the operator remained €3,569.85. Tallinn Circuit Court order of 27 June 2025, paragraphs 1–2 and 10–15.

Tartu Circuit Court, 7 March 2022 — 2-19-135957, paragraphs 14–16. The operator claimed a total of €80 in contractual penalties and €30 in collection costs for two parking occasions. The photographs did not show penalty notices being left under the windscreen wipers, and there was no other evidence of immediate notification.

The court dismissed the €110 claim because notification within a reasonable time had not been proved. The operator was ordered to pay €1,035 in procedural costs excluding VAT. Photographing the car and the breach does not in itself prove notification of the penalty claim.

Important qualification: “I did not receive the penalty notice” does not guarantee success

On 5 June 2019, the Supreme Court held that leaving a notice under a windscreen wiper may be a reasonable method of notification. In this €330 dispute involving 11 contractual penalties, the judgment against the operator was set aside and the case remitted for reconsideration. 2-17-117146, paragraphs 12–14.

On reconsideration, the €330 award was upheld because the photographs, together with the claim documents, proved that notices had been left on the vehicle. What matters, therefore, is proof of notification, rather than merely the driver's assertion that they did not see the paper. Tallinn Circuit Court judgment of 30 October 2019, paragraphs 14.5–14.7.

Practical summary: first check the terms in force at the time of the breach, proof of payment or registration, who actually parked the car, and the dates of notification and court proceedings.