“To be continued”: sequels in dialogue of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation with legislator

Counter-majoritarian difficulty is axiomatic regarding relations of the Constitutional Court (CC) and legislator. It’s true that dialogue helps to promote legitimacy and trust for judicial review of legislation. Although post-soviet countries enrich the doctrine of dialog by new nuances. Despite the anti-democratic trends and the rise of populism, in some cases the CC still uses the activism towards the legislator. The author argues that intensity of judicial review depends on several factors such as the status of the decision-maker (federal or regional parliament), ad hoc balancing in the historical and social contexts; the importance of the right concerned; quality of legislative fact-finding etc. However, a more deferential approach instead of nullifying the legislation is not a safe strategy for the CC. As the 2020 constitutional amendments shows, wide use of a consistent interpretation by CC didn’t protect from the humiliating reduction in the number of judges from 19 to 11.