Skip to main content
Praxikon
All answers

Direct answer

What does Article 46 of the AI Act say about derogation from conformity assessment procedure?

Your question is about Article 46: derogation from conformity assessment procedure. That obligation applies today. Whether your system actually falls under it depends on conditions you assess yourself.

You determine this yourself

  • The authorisation may be granted only for exceptional reasons of public security or the protection of life and health of persons, environmental protection or the protection of key industrial and infrastructural assets. That list is the entire basis: a commercial interest, a delivery deadline or a tender date is not in it.
  • A duly justified request is required, the authorisation comes from a market surveillance authority, it concerns specific high-risk AI systems, and it operates solely within the territory of the Member State concerned. It is moreover for a limited period while the necessary conformity assessment procedures are being carried out, and the completion of those procedures shall be undertaken without undue delay.
  • The authorisation is issued only if the market surveillance authority concludes that the high-risk AI system complies with the requirements of Section 2. The derogation therefore concerns the procedure of Article 43 and not the substantive requirements of Articles 8 to 15: those must be met before the authorisation exists.
  • Paragraph 2 removes the prior authorisation in a duly justified situation of urgency for exceptional reasons of public security or in the case of a specific, substantial and imminent threat to the life or physical safety of natural persons. Only law-enforcement authorities and civil protection authorities may rely on it, and only for putting into service, provided that such authorisation is requested during or after the use without undue delay.
  • Paragraph 7 excludes this Article for high-risk AI systems related to products covered by Union harmonisation legislation listed in Section A of Annex I. There, only the derogations from the conformity assessment established in that Union harmonisation legislation shall apply. For a regulated product, Article 46 is therefore not a route.
  • The notification duty in paragraph 3 towards the Commission and the other Member States shall not cover sensitive operational data in relation to the activities of law-enforcement authorities. The authorisation itself stands; the flow of data around it is limited.

First step: Prepare a derogation request and the exit plan that goes with it.

Article 46 of the AI Act covers derogation from conformity assessment procedure. By way of derogation from Article 43, a market surveillance authority may, upon a duly justified request, authorise the placing on the market or the putting into service of specific high-risk AI systems within the territory of the Member State concerned, for exceptional reasons of public security, the protection of life and health of persons, environmental protection or the protection of key industrial and infrastructural assets. The authorisation is for a limited period while the conformity assessment is carried out, and those procedures are completed without undue delay. Law-enforcement authorities and civil protection authorities may start without an authorisation in a situation of urgency, provided that it is requested without undue delay; if it is refused, use stops with immediate effect and all results and outputs are discarded. The authorisation is issued only if the system complies with the requirements of Section 2, goes to the Commission and the other Member States, and is deemed justified after fifteen calendar days without objection. This provision concerns the deployer and the provider of an AI system. This provision applies today.

The conclusion and your first steps

This applies now

Your first actions

  1. Prepare a derogation request and the exit plan that goes with it. Write in advance the reasoning paragraph 1 calls for, with the exceptional reason invoked, the evidence that the system complies with the requirements of Section 2, the status of the ongoing conformity assessment, and an exit plan in case the authorisation is refused or withdrawn.
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 46(1)-(2)
    • Article 46(3)-(4)
    • Article 46(5)-(7)
    • Article 43(1), (2) and (4); Article 47(1); Article 48(1); Article 49(1); Article 79(1); Chapter III, Section 5, and Article 113, second paragraph

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