Direct answer

When are you a public-law body under the AI Act?

5 obligations under the AI Act bear on this, of which 2 apply today.

First step: Assign human oversight and give those people a mandate.

Whether you are a public-law body is not a matter of what you call yourself but of what you do with the system. Across the 5 obligations there are 16 conditions and exceptions that decide it. Below they are listed per provision, with the official source. Likely role: public-law body.

The conclusion and your first steps

Preliminary reading · Article 71: EU database for high-risk AI systems listed in Annex III

Two things about the law itself are unsettled here. First, the date. Article 71 falls under the general application date of 2 August 2026, while the entry duties in paragraphs 2 and 3 hang on the registration in Article 49, whose Annex III route was shifted to 2 December 2027 by Regulation (EU) 2026/1744. We therefore read the practical deadline as 2 December 2027. Two alternative readings are defensible, and they point in opposite directions: the mild one is that the database exists from 2 August 2026 and only the entering follows the later date, so whoever registers earlier is not being early but on time; the hard one is that the amended Article 113, third paragraph, point (c), names only Chapter III, Sections 1, 2 and 3, while Article 49 sits in Section 5 of that same Chapter, so the registration duty may not have moved with it and you may already be late rather than early. Anyone planning against this deadline is planning against our reading and not against a settled fact. Second, the Article 60 route. Article 60 sits in Chapter VI and the provider or prospective provider testing in real world conditions today must register under Article 60(4), point (c), in accordance with Article 71(4). Whether that route moved with the Annex III deferral or already runs under the general date of 2 August 2026 is unsettled. The fact that 2026/1744 widened the scope of Article 60 to Annex I Section A and placed an Article 60a alongside it for Annex I Section B makes that question larger rather than smaller. This object does not carry that duty and the status here says nothing about it. Settled, and therefore no longer a ground for the preliminary status: the content of Section B of Annex VIII. Article 1, point (42), of Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 deletes points 7 and 9, and the reading above follows that text rather than the base regulation. One cross-reference does follow from it that the legislator did not chase down: Article 49(4) is unamended and still lists point 9 of Section B for the secure section, a point that no longer exists. Whoever works through that list literally is looking for a field that is not there. In addition, and this expressly does not carry the status because it is not an unsettled reading but a coverage gap of this dataset: paragraphs 1 and 6 address the Commission, which is not an actor here, so this object carries only the entry duties of paragraphs 2 and 3; and paragraph 3 also names whoever acts on behalf of a public authority, a role that does not exist separately alongside the body governed by public law, so a private party registering on behalf of a public authority has to assess for itself whether paragraph 3 rests on it.

The text of the provision is settled. How it plays out has not been decided in case law or guidance, so this is our reasoned reading and not established law. Weigh it yourself, or put it to your own lawyer.

This applies now

Coming up

Article 26: obligations of deployers of high-risk AI systemsfrom 2 December 2027
Article 27: FRIAfrom 2 December 2027
Article 71: EU database for high-risk AI systems listed in Annex IIIfrom 2 December 2027

What decides whether this is about you

Article 26: obligations of deployers of high-risk AI systems

Applies when: Applies as soon as you use a high-risk AI system under your own authority (Article 3(4)), whether you built it yourself or procured it. For the standalone Annex III route (Article 6(2)) the date is 2 December 2027; for the embedded Annex I route (Article 6(1)) the date is 2 August 2028.

Unless: Article 2(10) excludes natural persons using an AI system in the course of a purely personal, non-professional activity. For deployers that are financial institutions subject to internal governance requirements under Union financial services law, the monitoring obligation in paragraph 5 is deemed fulfilled by complying with those rules, and the logs under paragraph 6 are maintained as part of the documentation kept under that law.

Article 27: FRIA

Applies when: The system is high-risk under Article 6(2) and Annex III, excluding Annex III point 2.
Applies when: The deployer is a body governed by public law, a private provider of public services or uses a relevant system in Annex III point 5(b) or 5(c).

Unless: In the situation covered by Article 46(1), an exemption from notification may apply. This does not generally remove the assessment itself.

Article 49: registration in the EU database before the system reaches the market

Applies when: Paragraph 4 does not except the registration but relocates it: for the systems referred to in points 1, 6 and 7 of Annex III in the areas of law enforcement, migration, asylum and border control management, the registration referred to in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 goes into a secure non-public section of the EU database, with a limited list of fields from Annex VIII and Annex IX, and only the Commission and the national authorities referred to in Article 74(8) have access to it.
Applies when: Applies where a provider or, where applicable, an authorised representative places on the market or puts into service a high-risk AI system listed in Annex III, and where that same party places on the market or puts into service an AI system for which it has concluded that it is not high-risk according to Article 6(3).
Applies when: Applies where a deployer that is a public authority, Union institution, body, office or agency, or a person acting on their behalf, puts into service or uses a high-risk AI system listed in Annex III.
Applies when: Registration is a precondition and not a notification afterwards: paragraphs 1 and 2 attach to the moment before the system is placed on the market or put into service, paragraph 3 to the moment before it is put into service or used.

Unless: This is an exception to the route and not to the duty. Paragraphs 1 and 3 except the high-risk AI systems referred to in point 2 of Annex III from registration in the EU database, and paragraph 5 provides that those systems are registered at national level. For critical infrastructure the registration therefore does not fall away: it runs through the national register rather than through the Article 71 EU database.

Article 71: EU database for high-risk AI systems listed in Annex III

Applies when: Applies where a provider or authorised representative places an Annex III high-risk AI system on the market or puts it into service and registers itself and that system in accordance with Article 49, where that same party registers a system considered not to be high-risk pursuant to Article 6(3), or where a deployer that is, or that acts on behalf of, a public authority, agency or body registers itself, selects the system and registers its use.

Unless: Article 49(5) provides that high-risk AI systems referred to in point 2 of Annex III are registered at national level. For those systems the registration therefore does not run through the Article 71 EU database.
Unless: Paragraph 4 excludes the section referred to in Article 49(4) from public availability. For the systems referred to in points 1, 6 and 7 of Annex III in the areas of law enforcement, migration, asylum and border control management, registration takes place in a secure non-public section of the database, with fewer fields than the full Sections: Section A, points 1 to 10 with the exception of points 6, 8 and 9; Section B, points 1 to 5 and points 8 and 9; Section C, points 1, 2 and 3; and points 1, 2, 3 and 5 of Annex IX. Only the Commission and the national authorities referred to in Article 74(8) have access to those sections. Mind the cross-reference: Article 49(4) was not amended by Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 and therefore still names point 9 of Section B, while Article 1, point (42), of that same Regulation deleted that point. There is nothing left to fill in there.
Unless: Paragraph 4 additionally excludes the section referred to in Article 60(4), point (c). The main rule there is not a secure section: the provider or prospective provider registers the testing in real world conditions in accordance with Article 71(4), with a Union wide unique single identification number and the information specified in Annex IX. Under the third sentence of paragraph 4 that information is accessible only to market surveillance authorities and the Commission, unless the provider or prospective provider has given consent for also making it accessible to the public. Only for points 1, 6 and 7 of Annex III does the testing registration go into the secure non-public section under Article 49(4), point (d), and for point 2 of Annex III to national level under Article 49(5).

Articles 43-49: conformity assessment, CE and registration

Applies when: The provider places a high-risk system on the market; public deployers also register their use.

Unless: For most Annex III systems internal control suffices (Annex VI); a notified body is required for certain biometrics and where harmonised standards are lacking.

These are the questions you answer yourself. Praxikon shows which condition sits in which provision; whether your system meets it is yours to establish.

government and public services
Awarding social assistance in a municipality: the FRIA and the notification
A municipality wants to deploy an AI system that sorts applications for social assistance benefits and indicates which files merit extra scrutiny before a case worker decides. The application is already listed in the public algorithm register. The question is what has to be in place before the first citizen passes through this system.
Provenance: Article 27(1) requires deployers which are bodies governed by public law, or private entities providing public services, to perform an assessment of the impact on fundamental rights that the use of a high-risk AI system referred to in Article 6(2) may produce, prior to deploying it, with the exception of systems intended to be used in the area listed in point 2 of Annex III. That assessment covers, among other elements, the categories of natural persons and groups likely to be affected, the specific risks of harm to those categories, the implementation of human oversight measures, and the measures to be taken if those risks materialise, including the arrangements for internal governance and complaint mechanisms. Article 27(3) provides that once the assessment has been performed, the deployer shall notify the market surveillance authority of its results and submit the filled-out template referred to in paragraph 5 as part of that notification, and that in the case referred to in Article 46(1) deployers may be exempt from that obligation to notify. Article 27(5) provides that the AI Office shall develop a template for a questionnaire, including through an automated tool, to facilitate deployers in complying with their obligations under this Article in a simplified manner.
We read Article 27 as making the municipality the most obvious deployer here, and as requiring the assessment to be complete before the first application runs through the system, not as an account rendered afterwards. That duty does depend first on whether this system is high-risk at all: does it help decide entitlement to social assistance, or does it stay within a preparatory or narrowly procedural task under Article 6(3), which closes its own exception again once the system profiles citizens? Answer that question before you start on paragraph 1. An entry in the public algorithm register is on our reading something different from the assessment under paragraph 1, and it does not replace notifying the market surveillance authority of the results. In practice it pays to record the citizen's complaint route and the case worker's room to depart from the signal in the same file, because paragraph 1 asks for precisely those two elements.
Editorial example. The rule above is in the Regulation. The situation was written by us to show how that rule plays out in this sector, and is not taken from a worked case in official guidance.
Article 27(1), (3) and (5)
law enforcement
Recidivism scoring in police work: when the assessment must be redone
A police service deploys an AI system that estimates the recidivism risk of a suspect, as an aid to the judgements later made by the prosecution service and the court. The model is subsequently retrained on newer investigative data and use is extended to a second region. The question is whether the assessment made for first use remains adequate.
Provenance: Article 27(1) requires deployers which are bodies governed by public law to perform, prior to deploying a high-risk AI system referred to in Article 6(2), an assessment of the impact on fundamental rights that its use may produce, with the exception of systems intended to be used in the area listed in point 2 of Annex III. That assessment consists of a description of the processes in which the system will be used, of the period and frequency of use, of the categories of natural persons and groups likely to be affected, of the specific risks of harm taking into account the information given by the provider pursuant to Article 13, of the implementation of human oversight measures according to the instructions for use, and of the measures to be taken if those risks materialise. Article 27(2) provides that the obligation applies to the first use, that previously conducted impact assessments or existing assessments carried out by the provider may be relied on in similar cases, and that a deployer who considers during use that any element listed in paragraph 1 has changed or is no longer up to date shall take the necessary steps to update the information. Article 27(3) provides that the results are notified to the market surveillance authority together with the filled-out template, and that in the case referred to in Article 46(1) an exemption from that notification duty may apply.
We read Article 27 as covering a police service as a body governed by public law under paragraph 1, and as an assessment that does not stop at first use: retraining on newer investigative data or extending use to a second region touches the elements of paragraph 1 and, on our reading, calls for updating the record. That retraining also raises a question Article 27 itself does not answer, namely whether the change goes far enough to count as a substantial modification, which would make you a provider in your own right under Article 25. Bear in mind as well that the exception in paragraph 3 concerns, on our reading, the notification and not the assessment itself. Finally, start that assessment only after establishing that the deployment as such is permitted, because Article 5 rules out certain predictive applications in criminal investigation.
Editorial example. The rule above is in the Regulation. The situation was written by us to show how that rule plays out in this sector, and is not taken from a worked case in official guidance.
Article 27(1)-(3)
education
Selection at student admission: a DPIA is not yet a FRIA
A university of applied sciences has an AI system rank applications for a vocational programme, using the exam results of earlier students to calibrate that ranking. A data protection impact assessment already exists for this processing. The question the school asks is whether that also covers the fundamental rights side of admission.
Provenance: Article 27(1) provides that deployers which are bodies governed by public law, or private entities providing public services, and deployers of high-risk AI systems referred to in points 5(b) and (c) of Annex III, shall perform an assessment of the impact on fundamental rights prior to deploying a high-risk AI system referred to in Article 6(2), with the exception of systems intended to be used in the area listed in point 2 of Annex III. That assessment consists of a description of the deployer's processes in which the system will be used in line with its intended purpose, of the period and frequency of use, of the categories of natural persons and groups likely to be affected, of the specific risks of harm to those categories, of the implementation of human oversight measures, and of the measures to be taken if those risks materialise, including the arrangements for internal governance and complaint mechanisms. Article 27(2) provides that the obligation applies to the first use, that the deployer may in similar cases rely on previously conducted impact assessments or existing assessments carried out by the provider, and that a deployer who considers during use that any element listed in paragraph 1 has changed or is no longer up to date shall take the necessary steps to update the information. Article 27(4) provides that where an obligation under this Article is already met through the data protection impact assessment conducted pursuant to Article 35 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or Article 27 of Directive (EU) 2016/680, the assessment under paragraph 1 complements that data protection impact assessment.
We read Article 27 as placing the education institution that runs this selection itself in the deployer role, but that alone does not settle the duty. Paragraph 1 names bodies governed by public law and private entities providing public services, and whether a state-funded or a private university of applied sciences answers to either description is the question you have to settle first. If it does, an existing data protection impact assessment is on our reading the starting point rather than the last word: paragraph 4 has the fundamental rights assessment sit alongside it, and since Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 that assessment may incorporate or cross-refer to relevant parts of it, so the real question is which elements of paragraph 1 are still missing. For you that means recording which groups of students may be affected, how the admissions committee or the teacher can correct an outcome, and where a rejected applicant can lodge a complaint. If the selection rule or the assessment component underpinning the ranking changes, that is on our reading the moment to update the record, rather than the start of the next academic year.
Editorial example. The rule above is in the Regulation. The situation was written by us to show how that rule plays out in this sector, and is not taken from a worked case in official guidance.
Article 27(1), (2) and (4)
financial services
Health insurer using AI for risk assessment: public or private makes no difference
A health insurer uses AI for risk assessment and pricing of health and life insurance. The question is whether this falls under point 5(c) of Annex III, and with that whether the Article 27 FRIA duty comes into play.
Provenance: The Commission draft guidelines of 19 May 2026 state that the health and life insurance in point 5(c) may be offered on a private or a public basis: a health insurer governed by public law also falls within it, so long as the system is intended for risk assessment or pricing with regard to natural persons. Privately serviced health insurance counts as an essential private service, even in a Member State with a public healthcare system. Unlike point 5(b), point 5(c) provides no exception for fraud detection. The document is a consultation version: non-binding and not yet final.
For the FRIA question point 5(c) counts twice: it makes the system high-risk and it makes you, as deployer, one of the parties Article 27 names. A public-law form or a public healthcare system in your Member State changes nothing there. Do not count on the fraud-detection exception from point 5(b) either: it does not apply here, and a fraud feature alongside risk assessment does not take the system out.
Draft guidelines on high-risk AI classification, 19 May 2026, annex on Annex III, paragraphs (319) to (321)

Annex I lists legislation, not products
The draft guidelines of 19 May 2026, published for consultation and expressly non-binding, clarify that Annex I AI Act does not list individual products to be classified as high-risk, but Union harmonisation legislation regulating the safety aspects of certain products. Whether an AI system falls within the scope of Annex I therefore depends on whether the system, or the product of which it is a safety component, falls within the material scope of one of the listed legislative acts. According to the draft guidelines the list in Annex I is exhaustive; products can only be added or removed by amending the scope of the harmonisation legislation itself or by adding new harmonisation legislation to Annex I. The draft guidelines also state that through Article 6(1) the AI Act does not itself extend the scope of harmonisation legislation to new or additional products, and that the AI Act does not determine or change the risk profile of a product but builds on the sectoral risk classification. Products mentioned include machinery, toys, lifts, equipment and protective systems for potentially explosive atmospheres, radio equipment, pressure equipment, recreational craft, cableway installations, appliances burning gaseous fuels, medical devices, in vitro diagnostic medical devices, and products in the automotive and aviation sectors.
Draft guidelines Annex I, points (23) to (26)
Section A and Section B of Annex I trigger different requirement sets
The Commission draft guidelines of 19 May 2026, which are non-binding as long as the final version has not been adopted, draw a distinction that is often missed in practice. AI systems classified as high-risk under Article 6(1) in respect of products covered by the harmonisation legislation in Section A of Annex I are subject to the requirements for high-risk systems in Section 2 of Chapter III AI Act. By contrast, for AI systems classified as high-risk under Article 6(1) in respect of products covered by the harmonisation legislation in Section B of Annex I, only Article 6(1), Articles 102 to 109 and Article 112 AI Act apply. The draft guidelines refer to Article 2(2) AI Act for this. Section A contains harmonisation legislation based on the New Legislative Framework, Section B the other Union harmonisation legislation.
Draft guidelines Annex I, point (60), referring to Article 2(2) AI Act
Two cumulative conditions for high-risk under Annex I
The European Commission draft guidelines of 19 May 2026, which are expressly non-binding and not final, read Article 6(1) as two cumulative conditions. First, the AI system must be intended to be used as a safety component of a product, or the AI system must itself be a product, covered by the Union harmonisation legislation listed in Annex I. Second, that product, or the AI system itself where it is the product, must be required to undergo a third-party conformity assessment. The draft guidelines state explicitly that not all AI systems that are components of regulated products are high-risk, but only the subset that satisfies both criteria.
Draft guidelines Annex I, points (27) and (21)
The Article 6(3) filter: four exhaustive grounds, to be read narrowly
According to the non-binding draft guidelines of 19 May 2026 on the classification of high-risk AI, Article 6(3) sets out four grounds on which a provider may exempt a system from high-risk classification: performing a narrow procedural task, improving the result of a previously completed human activity, detecting decision-making patterns or deviations from prior patterns without replacing or influencing the previously completed human assessment absent proper human review, and performing a preparatory task. Paragraph (88) of this draft states these grounds are exhaustive but alternative, that there is no separate independent risk test, and that they must be interpreted narrowly because Article 6(3) is an exception to rules that among other things protect fundamental rights. Paragraph (87) states the filter applies only to systems under Article 6(2) and not to systems under Article 6(1). Paragraph (89) states a system always remains high-risk where it performs profiling. Paragraph (90) adds that the filter does not apply where the system forms part of a complex system whose combined intended purpose or joint outputs materially influence an individual decision, including agentic AI. Paragraphs (113) to (116) of this draft describe that this is a self-assessment by the provider, that Article 6(4) requires documenting the assessment before placing on the market and registering in the Article 71 EU database, and that the assessment must contain at least the intended purpose, why the system falls under Article 6(2), which Article 6(3) condition applies and why, and why the system does not perform profiling. Paragraph (117) of these draft guidelines points to Articles 80 and 99 where an authority finds a system was misclassified as non high-risk to circumvent the rules.
Draft guidelines on high-risk AI classification (19 May 2026), Annex III chapter, sections 2.7, 2.7.1, 2.7.3 and 2.7.4, paragraphs (84) to (90) and (113) to (117)

Read the official sourceChecked on 8 August 2026

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

When are you a public-law body under the AI Act?

This applies now

Coming up

What decides whether this is about you

Follow-up questions

Applies now

From 2 December 2027

Source and locator

Where relevant, connect the FRIA to the DPIA, register and decision-making

Zahed Ashkara

When are you a public-law body under the AI Act?

This applies now

Coming up

What decides whether this is about you

How this looks in practice4 practice examples

What the Commission says4 guidance statements

Standards that apply here1 standard

Follow-up questions

Applies now

From 2 December 2027

Source and locator

Where relevant, connect the FRIA to the DPIA, register and decision-making

Zahed Ashkara

Related questions