The purpose of this article is to analyse the limitation pe­riod applicable to claims arising from unequal pay treat­ment in the context of the implementation of Article 21 of Directive (EU) 2023/970 into Polish law. The authors demonstrate that the draft Act of 12 December 2025 (UC 127) implements the Directive only fragmentarily, omitting a statutory determination of the commencement of the limitation period linked to the employee’s acquisition of knowledge of the infringement. This omission weakens the practical ability to pursue claims arising from pay discrim­ination. In light of this legislative gap, which has thus far been addressed only in a limited number of judgments of the Polish Supreme Court, the authors argue that linking the commencement of the limitation period to the moment when the employee becomes aware of the discrimination is essential to ensuring the effective protection against une­qual pay treatment. Drawing on the Directive, the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), and selected comparative foreign solutions, the article for­mulates implementation proposals aimed at ensuring the full and coherent transposition of Article 21 into Polish law.

The aim of the article is to analyse employer liability for mobbing under Article 94³ of the Polish Labour Code, with particular emphasis on the significance of the perpetrator’s degree of fault and the victim’s sense of satisfaction in de­termining the amount of compensation for non pecuniary loss. The authors argue that the current legislation allows for a systematic separation of claims: compensation for non pecuniary loss should serve solely to remedy non material damage, whereas compensation for pecuniary loss should cover financial damage. They also advocate for the elimina­tion of the requirement of health impairment as a condition for awarding compensation for non pecuniary loss. The ar­ticle examines the legislative proposal UD183, which—by introducing a minimum threshold and assigning a punitive and preventive function—leads to a significant systemic shift, transforming compensation for non‑pecuniary loss in labour law into a sanction‑like instrument, raising concerns about its consistency with civil law principles.

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.