Annex III point 8High-risk domain

AI in justice and democratic processes

For legal organisations, public institutions and civic tech teams using AI around legal assessment or democratic decision-making.

Annex III point 8 touches rule-of-law and democratic values. Praxikon positions this as an authority and interpretation cluster, with careful boundaries between research, support and decision influence.

Scope according to the guidelines

The guidelines cover assistance to judicial authorities/ADR and systems that can influence elections or voting behaviour.

Classification question

Does the AI support legal interpretation, application of facts to law, ADR or democratic influence?

Read Article 6 classification rules Open Annex III legal text Use the Annex III classifier

What the Commission draft guidelines say

Summary by Praxikon of the draft of 19 May 2026. The draft is not binding; the final guidelines have not yet been published.

Point 8(a) covers AI that helps a judicial authority, or a body for alternative dispute resolution, research and interpret facts and the law and apply the law to a concrete set of facts. Purely ancillary tasks such as anonymising judgments, communication and administration fall outside (recital 61). Legal tech a law firm uses for itself is not covered by point 8(a); the same software used by or on behalf of a court is. Point 8(b) concerns AI intended to influence the outcome of elections or referenda or voting behaviour; tools whose output does not directly reach citizens, such as logistical campaign tools, are excluded.

Examples that are high-risk

AI analysing the facts in a case file and making a recommendation for a judge.
AI providing analyses in arbitration or mediation that influence the outcome.
AI targeting voters with the intent of influencing the outcome.

Examples that can fall outside

Calendar and file management, transcription of hearings or spell-checking of judgments.
Anonymising judgments for publication.
Call lists and volunteer management of a campaign.

Falling outside depends on the intended purpose and on the Article 6(3) exception, which never applies to profiling.

The overview of all eight areas and the dates is on Annex III of the AI Act; the Article 6(3) filter is explained in the Commission guidelines on high-risk AI.

Sources and status

This route is based on the Commission draft guidelines for high-risk classification, published on 19 May 2026. The examples are not exhaustive and may change when the guidance is finalised.

Always check Article 6 and Annex III of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 as well. This page supports classification and evidence work, but it is not a supervisory decision.

Commission draft guidelines Official EU AI Act Article 6 on Praxikon Annex III on Praxikon 2026 guidance overview on Praxikon

High-risk obligations

If an AI system is high-risk under Annex III, classification and evidence should be linked to the relevant obligations for providers and deployers.

Article 9: Risk management system Article 10: Data and data governance Article 11: Technical documentation Article 12: Logging Article 13: Transparency and instructions for use Article 14: Human oversight Article 15: Accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity Article 26: Deployer obligations Article 27: FRIA where Article 27 applies

Use case guidance

Point 8(a)

Judicial authorities and ADR

AI assisting judicial authorities or ADR in researching, interpreting or applying law to facts.

Point 8(b)

Elections and voting behaviour

AI that can influence election outcomes or voting behaviour, with exceptions for limited support tools.

What to document

Intended purpose and context of use.

Why Article 6(2) and Annex III do or do not apply.

Whether the Article 6(3) filter may apply, and whether profiling blocks it.

Which provider and deployer obligations are triggered.

Legal AI classification check

Review a legal AI or democracy tech use case against Annex III point 8.

Start risk scan Schedule intake Expert page

Frequently asked questions

Short answers for classification, evidence and next steps under Annex III.

When should justice and democracy be assessed under Annex III?

The guidelines cover assistance to judicial authorities/ADR and systems that can influence elections or voting behaviour. The practical starting question is: Does the AI support legal interpretation, application of facts to law, ADR or democratic influence?

Which use cases are included in Administration of justice and democratic processes?

This domain page expands the main routes: Judicial authorities and ADR and Elections and voting behaviour. For each system, check the intended purpose, the output and the impact on access, rights or safety.

What should be documented before obligations are determined?

Document the intended purpose, use context, relevant Annex III route, Article 6(3) assessment, any profiling, provider/deployer roles and the required safeguards.