In 2016, for the first time, Russian procedural legislation contained rules on challenging acts which clarify legislation and have normative properties. These acts differ from normative acts and fall under the doctrinal concept of interpretative acts. The hypothesis of the study was that, due to legal and technical defects of the legal provisions in question and vagueness of the notion of “normative properties”, the judicial practice would face difficulties in distinguishing acts which clarify legislation and have normative properties from normative legal acts. In the course of law enforcement monitoring, the entire set of court decisions from February 2016 to July 2020, based on relevant procedural norms, was examined. The most important particularity of interpretative acts is the logical-semantic link between the content of the interpretative act and the interpreted legal norm (group of norms) of the normative act. Consequently, when the result of interpretation does not coincide with the meaning of the interpreted legal norm, a specific conflict of interpretation occurs, the five possible types of which have been identified in the studied judicial acts. Based on the analysis of the arguments given in the reasoning parts of the court decisions (five arguments in satisfying an administrative claim and fourteen arguments in rejecting it), the attributes that govern law enforcement officers when assessing whether the challenged acts have normative value are reconstructed. At the final part of the study authors reveal the main problems identified in the course of the monitoring study and formulate proposals for their elimination.