The aim of this article is to identify the barriers hindering the development of intellectual property insurance and to evaluate its potential in light of the growing significance of intangible assets in the modern economy. Although intellectual capital represents an increasingly significant component of corporate asset structures, the difficulties associated with its valuation hinder its use as an object of insurance coverage or as collateral for securing claims. This gives rise to a paradox: the importance of information and knowledge is steadily increasing, yet their insurability remains constrained. The article critically assesses the assumptions underlying the European Commission’s approach, contending that it is not the insurance sector that will drive the standardization of valuation practices, but rather that the advancement of valuation methodologies and access to reliable statistical data are prerequisites for the effective insurability of intellectual property.

Since the first judgments of 14 March 2017 concerning religious symbols in the workplace (C-157/15 and C-188/15), the CJEU has consistently followed a line of case law favorable to the principle of neutrality. The authors argue that in its rulings, the CJEU differentiates between the private and public sectors. In the case of the private sector, an entrepreneur's desire to be perceived by customers as neutral is a legitimate goal (Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights). However, an employer must also demonstrate that there was a real need to introduce a neutrality policy, related to the objective needs or expectations of customers or the need to mitigate the risk of conflicts between employees. In the case of the public sector (public authority), striving for neutrality (including exclusionary neutrality – including in relations with other employees) is considered a justified goal without the need to demonstrate a different need.