Skip to main content
Praxikon
All answers

Direct answer

What does Article 44 of the AI Act say about certificates of notified bodies?

Your question is about Article 44: certificates of notified bodies. That obligation applies today. Whether your system actually falls under it depends on conditions you assess yourself.

You determine this yourself

  • Applies as soon as a notified body has issued a certificate for a high-risk AI system. That happens along two routes. The certificate under Annex VII, which under Article 43(1) and (2) arises within Annex III only for the biometrics of point 1. There it can arise along two ways: a provider who has applied harmonised standards or common specifications may under the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 choose between the internal control of Annex VI and the procedure involving a notified body of Annex VII, and the second subparagraph makes Annex VII mandatory in the four cases it lists. And the certificate issued under Article 43(3) as replaced with effect from 27 July 2026, within the sectoral conformity assessment of the products of Annex I, Section A, where the body is notified under that sectoral legislation, where the quality management system of Article 17 is assessed as well, and where point 3, points 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5, the fifth paragraph of point 4.6 and point 5 of Annex VII apply. For the products of Annex I, Section B, which cover machinery since 27 July 2026, this Article has no bearing: the amended Article 2(2) makes only Article 6(1), Article 60a and Articles 102 to 112 applicable to those systems, and Article 44 is not in that list. Nor does it bear on the systems of points 2 to 8 of Annex III, which under Article 43(2) follow the internal control of Annex VI, where no notified body is involved.
  • Paragraph 3 withholds suspension, withdrawal or restriction where compliance with the requirements of Section 2 is ensured by appropriate corrective action taken by the provider of the system within an appropriate deadline set by the notified body. The principle of proportionality also allows the body to confine itself to restrictions instead of withdrawal.

First step: Manage the life of the certificate.

Article 44 of the AI Act covers certificates of notified bodies. A certificate issued by a notified body is valid for at most five years for AI systems covered by Annex I and at most four years for AI systems covered by Annex III, and may be extended at the request of the provider after a re-assessment. Where the system no longer meets the requirements of Section 2, the body shall, taking account of the principle of proportionality, suspend or withdraw the certificate or impose restrictions on it, unless the provider takes corrective action within an appropriate deadline it sets so as to ensure compliance with those requirements. An appeal procedure against that decision is available. This provision concerns the provider of an AI system. This provision has applied since 2 August 2026.

The conclusion and your first steps

This applies now

Your first actions

  1. Manage the life of the certificate. A practical working out for whoever holds a certificate: watch the expiry date, ask in time for the re-assessment that carries the extension, test every change against the substantial modification of Article 43(4), and make sure a deadline set by the body for corrective action reaches an identifiable person. Also track the body itself, because on cessation or withdrawal of its designation the deadlines of Article 36 apply.
Read the official sourceChecked on

General interpretation, not legal advice. Checked against Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 and the Digital Omnibus (EU) 2026/1744; the official source remains authoritative.

Full map for your situation

Source and locator

Every statement above rests on these texts. The locator points to the place in the text, the version and the date say which edition was checked.

  • EU Artificial Intelligence Act 2024/1689

    European Parliament and Council, version original-oj-2024-07-12, checked on , ELI http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj

    Locators in this source

    • Article 44(1)-(3)
    • Article 43(1), (2) and (4)
    • Article 36(3), (5), (7), (8) and (9)
    • Article 45(2), point (b)
    • Chapter III, Section 5, and Article 113, second paragraph
  • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

    European Parliament and Council, version official-journal-2026-07-24, checked on , ELI http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj

    Locators in this source

    • Article 1, point (19), replacing Article 43(3)
    • Article 1, point (2)(a), replacing Article 2(2), and point (41), amending Annex I
    • Article 1, point (40)(b), replacing Article 113, third paragraph, point (c)

Dataset praxikon:sys:registry:dataset:ai-act-implementation-graph 2.2.0, schema 1.5.0.

Execution

Embed this obligation in policy, process and ownership

A legal action only works when it is clear who performs it, where the evidence sits and when it is reviewed. Embed AI translates this obligation into working agreements, controls and ownership per system. The source interpretation above is separate from this commercial referral by Praxikon to an affiliated brand.

See the governance approach
Does this answer your question?
Zahed Ashkara, jurist and freelance AI & Privacy Consultant

Behind this page

Zahed Ashkara

Freelance AI & Privacy Consultant, jurist