The main idea of this study is the universal nature of the interpretation expressed by the Supreme Administrative Court in its resolution of 6 December 2021 (I FPS 2/21) on the need to sign procedural letters delivered electronically as attachments to the so-called general writings. The Supreme Administrative Court clearly "reminded" that the primary role in the issue of the importance of a signature (including an electronic one) in administrative court proceedings is played by legal provisions and not by the technical possibilities made available by the creators of ICT systems to their users. The Supreme Administrative Court indicated that from the perspective of procedural regulations, the key is the signature contained in the complaint to the Provincial Administrative Court and not the general ePAUP letter, a kind of electronic envelope that can include various letters. Administrative courts also began to apply the above position to cassation appeals, complaints, objections, and powers of attorney submitted as part of proceedings before these courts. Administrative decisions, resolutions, applications, and powers of attorney submitted in administrative proceedings, including tax and enforcement proceedings, must also meet the requirements of the resolution in question.

The aim of the article is to assess the legal nature of the form of restricting access to activities in the field of organizing tourist events (as well as facilitating the purchase of linked travel services), which was introduced by the Act of 24 November 2017 on package travel and related travel services. The form of regulation of access to the above-mentioned activity does not, in essence, differ from that provided for in the provisions of the Entrepreneurs' Law Act in the case of regulated activity. However, it is not one of the three forms of regulation of economic activity known to the Law of Entrepreneurs, although it also includes the pursuit of economic activity. Therefore, it follows from the above that the catalog of forms of regulation of economic activity regulated by this Act is in some sense incomplete. The use of the regulated activity model by the legislator for the purposes of the system of restricting access to activities in the field of organizing tourist events and facilitating the purchase of related tourist services resulted in duplicating not only the advantages but also the disadvantages of the model.