Precautionary measures are specified in Article 98. of Criminal Procedure Act(CPA), and their implementation is regulated by the Ordinance on the execution of Precautionary Measures. They are measures that ensure the presence of the defendant before and during the criminal proceeding, and there are 11 precautionary measures which are exhaustively listed (Art. 98. CPA). They must be determined as milder measures, accordance with the principle of proportionality, if the same purpose may be achieved by any of the precautionary measures, without depriving the defendant of his freedom. When circumstances exist which constitute the ground for detention stated in Article 123. CPA, and they are ordered by state attorney or investigation judge, prior to the commencement of the criminal proceeding, and by the court of first instance after the indictment is filled. They can be ordered at the parties proposal or ex officio, for the whole duration of the criminal proceeding, as well before its initiation, until the judgement becomes final, i.e. enforceability of the judgement. Precautionary measures may last as long as they are necessary, and their duration is never limited by the terms of pre-trial detention. In the case of failure to carry out the ordered precaution it may be replaced by another precaution, by a more severe measure or detention, and if the deadlines for pre-trial detention have passed, non-observance of certain precautionary measures constitutes the criminal offense of non-execution of a court decision. The aim of this paper is to point out the shortcomings in ordering, prolonging and vacating a precautionary measures through practice. By analyzing cases from the case law of domestic courts and the European Court of Human Rights, an attempt was made to provide a comprehensive overview of precautionary measures in practice.