Skip to main content
Praxikon
All answers

Direct answer

What obligations does the provider of a GPAI model and the provider of an AI system have under Articles 40 to 42 of the AI Act?

Your question is about articles 40 to 42: standards, common specifications and presumption of conformity. That obligation applies today. Whether your system actually falls under it depends on conditions you assess yourself.

You determine this yourself

  • The presumption in Article 40(1) arises only where the references of the harmonised standard have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012, and it reaches only to the extent that those standards cover those requirements or obligations. The same holds for the cybersecurity certification of Article 42(2), the references of which must likewise have been published in the Official Journal.
  • The justification duty of Article 41(5) arises only where a common specification has actually been established by implementing act for the requirement concerned and the provider does not apply it. Where no such specification exists, there is nothing to depart from and you demonstrate conformity by the ordinary route.
  • A presumption of conformity is not a finding of compliance. The text says the system shall be presumed to be in conformity, and only in so far as the standard or the specification covers the requirements or obligations concerned. Outside that coverage the burden of proof rests fully on the provider, and a market surveillance authority can rebut the presumption where the system in fact does not meet the requirements.
  • Article 41(4) makes a common specification lapse as soon as the standard exists: when reference to a harmonised standard is published in the Official Journal of the European Union, the Commission repeals the implementing acts, or parts thereof, which cover the same requirements or obligations. A file leaning on a repealed specification thereby loses its basis.

First step: Record per requirement which standard or specification you rely on, and justify every departure.

Articles 40 to 42 of the AI Act covers standards, common specifications and presumption of conformity. A party applying a harmonised standard whose reference has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union is presumed to be in conformity with the requirements of Section 2 or with the obligations of Chapter V, Sections 2 and 3, to the extent that the standard covers them. As long as no such standard exists, the Commission may adopt common specifications by implementing act, and those carry the same presumption. If you do not apply such a common specification, you must duly justify that you have adopted technical solutions that are at least equivalent. Article 42 adds three narrow presumptions, and they do not all arise in the same way. Paragraph 1 gives the presumption of conformity with Article 10(4) to systems trained and tested on data reflecting the specific geographical, behavioural, contextual or functional setting within which they are intended to be used; no publication in the Official Journal is attached to it. Paragraph 2 does carry that condition: the presumption of conformity with the cybersecurity requirements of Article 15 applies to systems certified under a scheme pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2019/881 the references of which have been published in the Official Journal. The paragraph 3 added by Article 1, point (18), of Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 gives that same presumption to systems falling within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2024/2847 that meet the conditions in Article 12(1) thereof. Each of these presumptions is rebuttable and reaches no further than what the standard, the specification or the certification covers. The duty sits with the provider of a GPAI model and the provider of an AI system. This obligation applies today.

The conclusion and your first steps

This applies now

Your first actions

  1. Record per requirement which standard or specification you rely on, and justify every departure. Keep a coverage matrix of the requirements of Section 2 against the harmonised standards, common specifications and own documents applied, noting per row the publication status in the Official Journal, and write out the Article 41(5) justification for every common specification you do not 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 40(1) to (3)
    • Article 41(1) to (3)
    • Article 41(4), (5) and (6)
    • Article 42(1) and (2)
    • Article 10(4); Article 15; Article 43(1); 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, points (17) and (18), amending Article 40(2) and Article 42
  • CEN-CENELEC JTC 21: European standards under standardisation request M/613

    CEN-CENELEC JTC 21, version work-programme-checked-2026-08-08, checked on

    Locators in this source

    • EN 18286:2026, CEN/CLC/JTC 21 under standardisation request M/613
    • prEN 18228 (draft standard), CEN/CLC/JTC 21 under M/613

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