5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Alapitkä. 6.  On 5 October 1994 the applicant sustained injuries during an operation on his back. On 14 March 1997 he issued a summons claiming pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and compensation for costs from the Patient Insurance Association (potilasvakuutusyhdistys, patientförsäkrings-förening; later renamed as the Patient Insurance Board (potilasvakuutuskeskus, patientförsäkringscentral)). 7.  On 18 June 1998 the Helsinki District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) found the medical treatment inadequate and ordered the defendant to pay the applicant non-pecuniary damage for pain and suffering and to reimburse his medical expenses and legal costs. 8.  Both parties appealed to the Helsinki Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten). 9.  On 10 March 1999 the Court of Appeal invited the National Authority for Medicolegal Affairs (terveydenhuollon oikeusturvakeskus, rättskyddscentralen för hälsovården; “the Authority”) to submit its report on the matter. 10.  The Authority requested medical opinions from Drs N. and M., which were delivered on 28 May 1999 and 25 October 1999, respectively. Considering that the two opinions were partly contradictory, the Authority asked on 24 November 1999 for a third opinion from Professor A. On 10 May 2000, 2 August 2000 and 18 September 2000 the Authority inquired of him whether the opinion would soon be ready. Professor A.’s opinion was finally submitted on 28 December 2000, and on 17 January 2001 the Authority submitted its report to the Court of Appeal. 11.  In his observations to the appellate court the applicant complained, inter alia, about the delay of the Authority in submitting its report to the Court of Appeal, and invoked Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 12.  On 17 October 2001, having held an oral hearing, the Court of Appeal quashed the District Court’s judgment, rejecting the applicant’s claims. 13.  The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal on 6 June 2002. 14.  Meanwhile, on 31 October 2000 the applicant sent a petition to the Parliamentary Ombudsman (oikeusasiamies, ombudsman) complaining about the length of the proceedings before the Authority. On 2 January 2002 the Deputy Ombudsman criticised the Authority for unreasonable delay in issuing the requested report. She maintained, however, that the case did not disclose any unlawfulness in violation of section 21 of the Constitution of Finland. The Deputy Ombudsman did not examine the Court of Appeal’s proceedings as the case was at the time still pending before the Supreme Court.