THE RIGHT TO INFORMATIONAL SELF-DETERMINATION BETWEEN LEGISLATION AND IMPLEMENTATION

Background: The right to informational self-determination has emerged as a pivotal component of digital rights in the era of artificial intelligence and big data. Rooted in the broader right to privacy, this right enables individuals to control the collection, use, and dissemination of their personal data. Despite its recognition in instruments such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), a significant gap persists between the legal framework and practical implementation. The rationale of this study lies in analysing the disjunction between legislative guarantees and the realities of enforcement, with a focus on the European legal landscape. The increasing complexity of digital technologies and the emergence of new data categories—such as mental data—have challenged both legal doctrines and institutional capabilities. Methods: The study employs a doctrinal legal analysis, drawing on a comprehensive examination of the GDPR provisions, judicial precedents from the Court of Justice of the European Union, national supervisory authority reports, and academic commentaries. Comparative elements are included to contextualise the European framework within broader international developments. Practical cases and regulatory enforcement patterns are used to identify gaps and assess the effectiveness of current mechanisms. The research also incorporates an analytical evaluation of algorithmic environments and their implications for consent, transparency, and individual agency. Results and Conclusions: The study finds that while the GDPR offers a robust structure for personal data protection, its practical application is hindered by structural, technical, and interpretive challenges. Consent is often rendered ineffective in AI-driven contexts; individuals struggle to exercise their rights, and regulatory enforcement remains uneven across Member States. The research highlights the need for a harmonised institutional model, enhanced user interfaces, and the legal recognition of emerging data types like mental data. It concludes that bridging the legislative-implementation divide requires integrating legal, technological, and ethical tools within a cohesive framework—reaffirming the right to informational self-determination as a cornerstone of digital human dignity.