The decision was given, following a notification made by the Ombudsman, through the promotion of an appeal on points of law, due to the fact that the courts do not have a single point of view regarding the legality of the decisions of the local councils having to regulate the procedure on illegally parked vehicles, adopted in application of the Government Emergency Ordinance No. 195/2002 on public roads, republished, with subsequent amendments.

On the one hand the courts decide in the sense that “the local councils decisions involving the regulatory procedure of removing illegally parked vehicles have been adopted by overcoming the competence of the local councils and are contrary to normative acts with superior legal force” and in a different orientation, they decided that: “the Government Emergency Ordinance No. 195/2002 which represents the superior general rule regarding the technical measure of removing vehicles does not exclude the competence of the administrative local authorities to issue regulations in a decentralized manner, on the activity of traffic facilitation, by <Regulation> being understood any administrative act containing rules implementing the law, and not just the Implementing Regulations of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 195/2002. “

By the appeal on points of law promoted, Ombudsman considered that: “The Government Decision No. 1391/2006 (…) does not contain provisions on the procedure of removing illegally parked vehicle. In these conditions, at the level of public administration authorities, there have been adopted a series of acts with normative character, by which it was regulated in detail the procedure of removing illegally parked vehicles, thus establishing a competent public service in favor of a subordinate public service, who belongs equally to traffic police, and local police. The fact that the Regulation implementing the Emergency Ordinance no. 195/2002 does not regulate the procedure for implementing the measures to lift, transport and store the illegally parked vehicles, may not be interpreted as a failure of the legislator that could be directed corrected by the unilateral will of a deliberative local authority and in no case can justify the approach of local authority to adopt regulations in an area reserved by law to the Romanian Government. “

In accordance with Art. 517 paragraph 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Decision of the High Court of Cassation and Justice is mandatory.