The legislator has created several institutions aimed at protecting the proper course of criminal proceedings. Such institutions undoubtedly include preventive measures and coercive measures. Nevertheless – bearing in mind the optics of this article – the author focused primarily on the possibility of lodging a complaint against a decision on a coercive measure in the form of freeze on assets issued because of the accused (suspect) or his/her defence counsel filing a motion to revoke/amend the decision on freeze on assets. After all, in accordance with the will of the legislator, decisions regarding freeze on assets may be appealed against (Article 293(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, CCP), it is not entirely clear on what basis and whether the accused (suspect) and his/her defence counsel are entitled to submit a motion for repealing/amending the decision on asset freeze. Even assuming that the above-mentioned entities are entitled to submit such a motion, there may be problems inherently related to the right to appeal a procedural decision issued as a consequence of the motion, said problems related to the temporal limitation of lodging a means of appeal resulting from Article 254(2) CCP. Similarly, there is no universal agreement – if we assume that lodging an appeal is possible – which court will have jurisdiction to examine the given means of appeal. There are two competing views: according to one Article 254(3) CCP applies directly to jurisdiction, while according to the other it is necessary to adopt the jurisdiction of the court on general rules.