The question of the balance between the protection and the coercive measures of the property rights still remains relevant to the Courts or prosecutors each time dealing with the issues of applying temporary limitation of the property rights. Lithuanian law establishes several ways of affecting property rights: it could be a coercive measure under the Criminal Procedure Code or a penal sanction under the Criminal Code. Temporary limitation of the property rights as a coercive measure is related to the human right of the inviolability of property. Therefore any restriction of the property rights should be imposed as an ultima ratio measure, without which it would not be possible to achieve the required goals in the criminal procedure. It should be noted that even if justifying the use of the coercive measure to achieve the required goals, the right of the inviolability of property is violated if such measure is applied too long or when imposition of such measure is disproportionate. It is worth mentioning that the coercive measure - temporary limitation of the property rights could be applied even during the pre-trial investigation when there is no Court’s decision about the person’s guilt. For such reason the imposition of such coercive measure should be strictly measured. Because of fast advancement of technology and digital products in today’s world, the circle of the objects of the ownership becomes wider, broadening the meaning of the property. Accordingly, the coercive measures, directed to the restriction of the property rights, should adapt to the changing environment.[...]

When the criminal procedure ends, pretrial investigators, prosecutors and judges usually don’t care about the consequences of the proceedings, which were announced by the court as done violating the Code. Usually such violations officers associate only with their own disciplinary responsibility. But the disciplinary responsibility of the officer who was performing such actions is not the only consequence of the proceedings done when violating the Code. Based on the systemic analysis of the procedural and other legal acts, Authors distinguishes four main groups of the consequences of the proceedings, done when violating the Code: 1) criminal or disciplinary responsibility of the officer; 2) data, collected in the pretrial investigation, will not be admitted as evidence; 3) consequences, which eliminate unlawfully collected evidences, from the further criminal procedure; 4) duty of the state to compensate the damage to the person, who suffered from the actions, announced by the court as unlawful in the proceedings. According to legal acts, person acquires the right to require the compensation only if he experienced the harm by the illegal temporary detention, arrest, other procedural coercive measures, or by the illegal conviction. Analysis of the court‘s cases, done in this article, allows to state that existing legal regulation is contrary to the international treaties and general principles of the law. For that reason Authors suggest to consider possibility to change such existing legal regulation, removing an exhaustive list of procedural infringements from the law and providing to the person right to require compensation in all cases if the damage to him was done when violating the Code.