Reasoning Structure of Decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation as a Guarantee of Admissible Constitutional Interpretation

The subject of the research is the reasoning structure of decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation as a legal guarantee of admissible constitutional interpretation. The study examines how the reasoning part of a constitutional judicial act connects the final conclusion with the text of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the subject matter of constitutional review, previously formulated legal positions, and the limits of judicial discretion. Reasoning is considered not merely as an explanation of the adopted decision but as a mechanism for verifying the constitutional legal meaning of a norm and ensuring its consistent application in administrative, commercial, and ordinary judicial practice. The research is based on formal legal, systemic, comparative legal, and legal hermeneutic methods. The formal legal method is used to analyze the legal foundations of constitutional proceedings and the binding force of the Constitutional Court's legal positions. The systemic method examines reasoning as an organized form of constitutional legal argumentation. The comparative legal method refers to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on reasoned judicial decisions, while the hermeneutic method reveals reasoning as a means of legal meaning formation. The scientific novelty lies in substantiating the reasoning structure of decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation as an independent guarantee of admissible constitutional interpretation. The reasoning part is viewed as the stage where a verifiable transition from the constitutional text to the constitutional legal meaning of a norm is established. The article proposes criteria for admissible constitutional reasoning: textual connection, systematic coherence, subject-matter certainty, proportionality of argumentation, consideration of previously formulated legal positions, teleological discipline, procedural verifiability, and clarity of the addressee of reasoning.