In this article, the author examines the use of the techniques of argumentum a rubrica and argumentum pro subjecta materia as forms of systematic interpretation of the law. Particular attention is paid to the methodological differences between these techniques, as well as their use in Russian judicial practice. The author concludes that these techniques are used by courts extremely rarely, often without detailed reasoning. A conclusion is made about the auxiliary, but significant nature of these techniques as one of the possible ways to identify the meaning of regulatory material.