4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Helsinki. 5.  In July 1994 the applicant was on a boating trip with his family. While the boat was secured to a jetty off Helsinki harbour, it began to rock heavily up and down against the jetty in a sudden surging of the waves. The applicant, standing on the jetty at the time, tried to protect his boat and his family on board, by clutching the bow with his hands. In consequence, he fell between the boat and the jetty and sustained injuries to his neck and shoulder. Due to the accident he became permanently disabled for work and on 1 August 1995 his insurance company granted him a full disability pension. 6.  According to the applicant the rough waves were caused by a passing passenger ship which, in his view, had used excessive speed for the prevailing conditions. The applicant filed a criminal complaint with the police, which conducted a pre-trial investigation. The public prosecutor subsequently filed an application for a summons against the ship’s captain, who was a citizen of Estonia. The authorities failed, however, to serve the summons in due time and the alleged offences became time-barred. 7.  On 3 July 1996 the applicant lodged a civil action for damages with the Helsinki District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) against the captain and the Estonian shipping company, which was in charge of the ship. 8.  In their written response of 20 December 1996 the defendants pleaded firstly that the Helsinki District Court had no jurisdiction in the matter, the correct forum being the relevant court in Tallinn, Estonia. They also pleaded that the summons had not been properly served on the shipping company and that the claims against the captain were premature, as he could only be held liable for the amount not received from his employer. On 6 March 1998 the District Court rejected those pleas and continued with the proceedings. 9.  While the proceedings were underway, the shipping company was declared bankrupt. The bankruptcy proceedings were discontinued for lack of assets and the shipping company was removed from the business register on 26 August 1999. 10.  On 14 December 1999 the Helsinki District Court held a preliminary hearing in the compensation proceedings. During that hearing the applicant withdrew his claims against the shipping company. Both remaining parties requested adjournment of the proceedings in order to supplement their case. The date of the next hearing was left open. 11.  It turned out that the shipping company had been insured against liability with a Norwegian insurance company. As the relevant provisions governing insurance contracts in Finland and in Norway, respectively, allowed an action to be brought against the company in the event of bankruptcy of the insured, the applicant decided to do so in the sphere of the ongoing proceedings. However, under the Finnish legislation an action for damages based on marine insurance could not be examined by a court before the relevant authority, the Average Adjuster (merivahingonlaskija, dispaschör), had issued a damage report. On 20 November 2000 the applicant filed a request with the Average Adjuster to that end. 12.  In its written response of 28 September 2001 to the Average Adjuster the insurance company claimed that the authority was not competent to deal with the matter. It referred to the insurance contract and the relevant insurance terms, which stated that any dispute between the insurer and the insured was to be dealt with in arbitration proceedings (välimiesmenettely, skiljeförfarande) in Oslo, Norway. In addressing his claims directly to the association, instead of the company insured, the applicant was bound by those same terms. 13.  On 18 March 2002 the Average Adjuster issued its decision. It conceded the insurance company’s objection concerning the lack of competence and refrained from issuing a report on the damages. The applicant was also ordered to pay 1,200 euros (EUR) in fees and expenses to that authority. The decision was subject to an action for annulment within 30 days. In the event that no such action was lodged, the decision was to be complied with. 14.  On 11 April 2002 the applicant lodged an action against the above decision with the Helsinki District Court asking that it be quashed and the case remitted to the Average Adjuster. He further asked the court to confirm that the case could be dealt with by the general courts under Finnish law. In the alternative, he asked the court to quash the decision and to examine his claims against the insurance company jointly with his claims against the ship’s captain in the proceedings currently pending before the court. 15.  On 22 March 2005 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s action, finding that he was bound by the insurance terms, including the arbitration clause. 16.  The applicant appealed against the District Court’s judgment to the relevant appeal instance, the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen). On 24 April 2007 that court, having assessed the applicable legislation and the validity of the arbitration clause in respect of the applicant, upheld the lower court’s judgment. In its assessment the court took into account the relevant provisions of the Norwegian law and legal literature concerning the matter at hand. It noted that the issue before the courts had been unclear in the light of the Norwegian law and no precedent had been available. 17.  On 4 September 2007 the District Court held another preliminary hearing in the compensation proceedings, which were now pursued only against the ship’s captain. As the applicant had previously withdrawn his claims against the shipping company, the court refrained from issuing a decision in that respect. The case was again adjourned and the court ordered the applicant and the defendant to submit written statements by 30 November 2007 and 4 January 2008, respectively. 18.  On 11 and 14 March 2008 the District Court, sitting as a maritime court, held another preliminary hearing and the main hearing, where it received oral testimony and other evidence. 19.  On 2 April 2008 the District Court issued its judgment. It found that the captain could not be held liable for the applicant’s injuries and dismissed the action. On 8 April 2008 the applicant and the defendant informed the court that they had settled the case and agreed not to appeal against the judgment. On that same date, at the request of the parties, the District Court officially confirmed the settlement of the case.