on of the legal norm. There arises the question whether the time execution by the Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation of duties of the President of the Russian Federation, certainly, cause assignment of the new elections of the President of the Russian Federation or the renewal of execution of the powers by the President of the Russian Federation is possible.the given case the imperfection of the constitutional regulation is obvious. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation has corrected the developed situation after adoption at the request of the State Duma the resolution from July 6th, 1999 on the case about interpretation of regulations of Article 92 (P. 2 and 3) of the Constitutions of the Russian Federation [11] .the opinion of the Court, the regulations stipulated by the Constitution about time execution by the Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation of the duties of the President of the Russian Federation is distributed to cases of the preschedule termination of execution by the President of the powers listed in Article 92 of the Constitution, and also other exclusive cases when the President assigns the performance of the duties to the Chairman of the Government or when objectively is objectively excluded adoption by the President of the decision on time putting on of discharge duties of the President on the Chairman of the Government. The Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation acts as the President of the Russian Federation accordingly till the moment of returning of the working President of the Russian Federation to execution of the duties or up to the assignment to a post on a newly elected President of the Russian Federation. At the preschedule termination of execution of the powers by the President of the Russian Federation on the grounds stipulated in Article 92 of the Constitution, elections of the new President of the Russian Federation should be carried out in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation. the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation with its resolution from November 11th, 1999 on the case about interpretation of Article 84 (b), 99 (P. 1, 2 and 4) and 109 (P. 1) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation has actually established the legal norm concerning the moment of the termination of the powers of the State Duma in case of its dissolution by the President of the Russian Federation [12]. In connection with this decision the dissolution of the State Duma by the President of the Russian Federation means the termination from the moment of assignment of date of new elections, realization by the State Duma of the powers on adoption of laws stipulated by the Constitution, and also its other constitutional powers realized by decision-making at the session of the chamber. Thus, realization of the specified powers of the State Duma by the President of the Russian Federation, the Council of Federation, and other organs of the government is excluded.all the above-mentioned cases the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, in our opinion , has considerably improved the Fundamental Law, has made its clearer, more logical, taking into account tendencies of the constitutional development and requirement of the norms of the international law.the same time, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation at realization of interpretation of norms of the fundamental laws should ground on the principle of self-restriction of the ambitions, recognizing the primacy of norms of the Constituent document and realizing the framework of interpretation.the opinion of SV Polenina, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in a number of cases is beyond interpretation of norms of the Constitution, substituting the legislator [13]. It testifies to the ripened necessity of the legislative establishment of framework of interpretational activity of courts. Thus the major problem is to determine precisely, up to what limits interpretation of the constitutional norms can come. E.A. Lukyanova is convinced that at present there exists no guarantee that during the explanation the norm will not turn into the contrast, and will not become unrecognizable or will not change the sense [14] .our opinion, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation should not consider the case about interpretation containing in P. 4 Article 66 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation of the regulation about joining the autonomous region, the structure of the territory, the region at request of the Tyumen regional Duma, the Duma Hunty-Mansi Autonomous District and the State Duma Yamal-Nenets autonomous district. The resolution on the given request was made on July 14th, 1997 [15]. The court has tried to reply the insoluble question on interaction of the regulations of the Constitution that in the mutual relations with the federal organs of the government all the subjects of the Russian Federation should ...
