5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Panevėžys. 6.  The applicant was employed as the head of a municipal kindergarten in Panevėžys. 7.  On 11 December 2007 she was informed by the local office of the Special Investigation Service that, as a person of equivalent status to a civil servant, she was under investigation on suspicion of fraudulent management of accounts, abuse of office and forgery of documents. In May 2008 she was informed of additional suspicions against her concerning further acts of abuse of office, forgery of documents and misappropriation of property. 8.  In June 2008 the applicant submitted a request to the pre-trial judge to terminate the criminal investigation on the grounds that it had been excessively long. The judge refused the request, noting that the investigation had been completed earlier that month and the case was ready for trial. 9.  On 4 July 2008 the case was referred for judicial examination. On 13 July 2009 the Panevėžys District Court (hereinafter “the first-instance court”) found the applicant guilty on several of the charges against her. She was sentenced to a fine of 2,600 Lithuanian litai (LTL, approximately 753 euros (EUR)) and a prohibition on working for the civil service for two years and six months. 10.  The judgment was amended on appeal: on 19 February 2010 the Panevėžys Regional Court (hereinafter “the appellate court”) upheld the applicant’s conviction on some of the charges and acquitted her on several others. Her sentence was reduced to a fine of LTL 1,820 (EUR 527) and a prohibition on working for the civil service for one year and nine months. Soon afterwards the applicant was dismissed from her job by the Panevėžys City Municipality in line with the decision of the appellate court. 11.  By a final judgment of 16 November 2010 the Supreme Court of Lithuania upheld the reasoning of the appellate court but changed the applicant’s sentence. The Supreme Court found that when determining the length of the applicant’s prohibition on working for the civil service, it was necessary to take into account the fact that she had been suspended from her post during the criminal investigation (see paragraphs 12-19 below). As a result, the period of prohibition was reduced to one year and three months. 12.  Immediately after the launch of the criminal investigation against the applicant (see paragraph 7 above), on 12 December 2007 the first-instance court granted the prosecutor’s request to have the applicant suspended from her job as the head of the kindergarten for three months. The court held that there were grounds to believe that the applicant, as a person of equivalent status to a civil servant, might use her official position to hinder the investigation by, for example, destroying or fabricating evidence, or attempting to influence the witnesses in the case, who were her subordinates. 13.  The applicant appealed against the decision, arguing that she could not be equated to a civil servant because she worked under an employment contract with the Panevėžys City Municipality. She further argued that all the important documents had already been collected from the kindergarten and all the relevant witnesses had been questioned, so there was no possibility for her to interfere with the investigation. The applicant also submitted that she had no prior convictions and had never been subject to any disciplinary action at work and that her employer’s evaluation of her had always been positive; thus there were no grounds to believe that she would use her official position to hinder the investigation. Lastly, the applicant submitted that her job in the kindergarten was her only source of income and therefore the suspension would cause significant difficulties for her and her young daughter, whom the applicant was raising alone. However, the appellate court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the reasoning of the first-instance court. 14.  Subsequently the first-instance court granted the prosecutor’s requests to extend the applicant’s suspension from her post by further periods of one to three months on essentially the same grounds. The applicant appealed against all the decisions, raising the same arguments as before, but her appeals were dismissed by the appellate court (on 27 December 2007, 21 March 2008, 26 May 2008, 18 June 2008 and 6 August 2008). On 6 August 2008 the appellate court noted, inter alia, that the applicant was only suspended from holding a specific post in a particular kindergarten, so the suspension did not affect her ability to take a different job and thus obtain a source of income. 15.  On each of the above-mentioned occasions the decision of the first-instance court was taken following a written procedure, while the appellate court held oral hearings (see paragraphs 23 and 25 below). Neither the applicant nor her representative was present at any of these hearings. The prosecutor was present at the hearing of 21 March 2008. 16.  After the criminal case was referred for judicial examination (see paragraph 9 above), in October 2008 the first-instance court held an oral hearing in which it extended the applicant’s suspension from her post by two months on the same grounds as before. The applicant and her representative were present at the hearing. The applicant’s appeal was subsequently dismissed by the appellate court. 17.  On 1 December 2008 the first-instance court in an oral hearing at which the applicant and her representative were present, terminated the applicant’s suspension from her post. The court found that almost all the witnesses had been questioned, so there were no grounds to believe that the applicant might attempt to influence them or otherwise hinder the investigation. The applicant returned to her job as the head of the kindergarten the following day. 18.  However, on 12 December 2008 the appellate court overturned the decision of the first-instance court, finding that the investigation had not been completed yet, so there was still a risk that the applicant may hinder it. Since the appellate court was not authorised by law to adopt a new decision extending the suspension, the prosecutor submitted a new request for an extension to the first-instance court. During this period the applicant continued working as the head of the kindergarten. 19.  On 16 January 2009 the first-instance court, in an oral hearing at which the applicant and her representative were present, renewed the applicant’s suspension from her post for a period of three months. However, on 12 February 2009 the appellate court allowed an appeal by the applicant against this decision and quashed the above extension ordered by the first-instance court. The applicant returned to her job and remained the head of the kindergarten until her dismissal in February 2010 (see paragraph 10 above). 20.  On 20 December 2007 the applicant submitted a complaint to the Inspector of Journalistic Ethics concerning several articles in the Panevėžio rytas newspaper. The publications commented on the criminal case against the applicant and presented statements from her subordinates criticising her competence and personality. The applicant complained that these articles had been defamatory and insulting. She also complained about a comment posted by a user on the website of the Lietuvos rytas newspaper which insulted the applicant and her young daughter on the grounds that the applicant was a single mother. 21.  On 9 June 2008 the Inspector of Journalistic Ethics partly satisfied the applicant’s complaint. The Inspector found that the comment on the website of Lietuvos rytas was insulting to the applicant and her daughter and ordered the newspaper to remove it from the website. With respect to the articles in Panevėžio rytas, the Inspector held that the applicant was a public figure and therefore had to accept a greater level of media attention and criticism. The Inspector also found that the statements about the applicant in the articles in question reflected the opinions of the interviewed individuals, so the newspaper could not be held accountable for their factual accuracy. 22.  The Inspector’s decision indicated that it could be appealed to the court within thirty days. The applicant did not appeal.