Normalization of decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation: methods of its emergence, objective and subjective purviews

Having analyzed the legal doctrine and practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the author of the present article concludes about the existence of normalization (the rules of conduct of a general character) in the decisions of the Court. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation is not engaged in rule-making in its "pure form". The author comes to conclusion that the normalization is developed by judges only on the basis of "the available rules and constitutional legal principles" and is implemented by means of the procedure of interpretation. It is ascertained that the interpretation given by a specialized organ of the constitutional control is a kind of option of a rule-making process -the constitutional control rule-making that is realized in the course of activity of this body exclusively. The specificity of constitutional control rulemaking is predetermined by the fact that it is a "by-product". According to the author, not all decisions have the property of normalization since the essence of it lies in its generic character i.e. some decisions of the Constitutional Court have an individual (a law enforcement) character. Therefore, when implementing the constitutional supervisory powers, normalization in the decisions can either become obvious or not. The author proposes the classification of constitutional control rule-making and highlights, in particular, an independent direct rule-making and an independent indirect (mediated) rule-making. He shows the methods and ways of emergence of normalization in the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. Constitutional control rule-making is carried out with the use of special techniques and methods inherent only in the body of constitutional control provided that the ways of emergence of normalization differ from the types of interpretation - universalization, analogy, a "positive" and "negative" comparativizm. Having analyzed the legislation and having held the opinion poll of the Constitutional Court judges, the author revealed both objective and subjective purviews (limits) of normalization in constitutional proceedings. He concludes that a modern composition of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation is harmonious and while making final decisions it promotes: a) the minimization of judicial activity; b) the adoption of balanced decisions; c) the constitutional restraint of the Court (self-restraint).

Keywords

Authors

References