4.  The applicant was born in 1919 and lived in Helsinki. 5.  In March 1985 the applicant underwent knee surgery in Palm Beach, Florida. On 15 June 1985 he was struck on the operated knee by G. Soon afterwards, an infection developed in the applicant’s knee and he became disabled. 6.  The applicant instituted civil proceedings against G. in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, which on 6 May 1988 ordered G. to pay the applicant 500,000 US dollars (USD) in pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. 7.  On 11 June 1989 G. died. As he had failed to pay the damages, the applicant lodged, on 9 September 1991, an action for damages against G.’s estate before the then Helsinki City Court (raastuvanoikeus, rådstuvurätt), claiming 2,008,500 Finnish Marks (FIM; corresponding to USD 500,000) plus interest. He alleged that his disability in movement and the operations which followed were caused by G.’s blow. On 27 November 1992 the defendant was summoned. 8.  The City Court held its first hearing on 6 February 1992. At the second hearing on 4 June 1992 the applicant requested an adjournment in order to submit trial documents from the United States. He also asked for witnesses to be heard in the United States. 9.  At the third hearing on 29 October 1992 the case was adjourned in order to allow the parties to submit questionnaires to the witnesses to be heard abroad. 10.  At the fourth hearing on 19 November 1992 the case was adjourned in order to hear four witnesses in the United States by way of international legal assistance. The City Court obtained the witnesses’ statements on 30 November 1993. 11.  The applicant was, however, dissatisfied with the hearing of the witnesses, and requested that they be heard again. At its sixth hearing on 25 February 1994 the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten; formerly the City Court) of Helsinki adjourned the case so that the witnesses could be heard again in Florida. 12.  At the ninth hearing on 19 September 1995 the applicant asked the court to speed up the proceedings. 13.  The witnesses’ statements were received by the District Court on 26 January 1996. At the tenth hearing on 19 April 1996 the applicant requested the court to decide on the case. The defendant, however, requested an adjournment, and the applicant did not object. 14.  At its fifteenth hearing on 23 May 1997 the District Court decided to ask for an expert opinion from the National Authority for Medicolegal Affairs (terveydenhuollon oikeusturvakeskus, rättskyddscentralen för hälsovården). The opinion was received on 31 October 1997. 15.  At the seventeenth hearing on 21 November 1997 the case was adjourned upon the applicant’s request to allow the parties to give their final statements and the applicant to submit a further expert opinion. 16.  On 26 May 1998 the District Court declared the case closed and adjourned it in order to give a decision. 17.  At its twentieth hearing on 18 September 1998 the District Court issued its judgment, dismissing the applicant’s claims. It found no causal link between the blow and the infection. It further ordered the applicant to reimburse the defendant’s legal expenses amounting to almost 30,000 euros (EUR). 18.  On 15 October 1998 the applicant appealed to the Helsinki Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten). On 15 December 1999 the appellate court decided to ask for another expert opinion from the National Authority for Medicolegal Affairs. The expert opinion was received on 16 July 2001. Having been granted an extension of the time-limit for submitting his observations, the applicant’s observations were filed with the court on 8 November 2001. 19.  The Court of Appeal held an oral hearing on 19-21 December 2001. In its judgment of 13 March 2002 it ordered the defendant to pay the applicant 1,500 EUR in compensation for non-pecuniary damage for pain resulting from the blow but dismissed his other claims. The applicant was further ordered to reimburse the defendant’s legal expenses incurred before the appellate court. 20.  Meanwhile, on 18 January 2001, upon the applicant’s application, the Deputy Chancellor of Justice (apulaisoikeuskansleri, biträdande justitiekanslern) considered that the proceedings before the court of first instance had been excessive in length. He also noted that the delay in the appellate court proceedings had been caused by the delay in receiving the expert opinion from the National Authority for Medicolegal Affairs. As the case was still pending before the domestic courts, he did not take any further action. 21.  On 1 October 2002 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused the applicant leave to appeal.