Skip to main content
Praxikon
Back to the explorer
ObligationApplicablev1.0.0

Article 75: market surveillance, mutual assistance and the powers of the AI Office

For a defined group of AI systems the AI Office is exclusively competent for supervision and enforcement instead of the national market surveillance authority. The Office can request information by simple request or by decision, open investigations, carry out remote and on-site inspections, make commitments binding, and impose both fines through Article 99 and periodic penalty payments. Four groups are carved out; there a national authority remains competent.

The official source remains authoritative. This is general information about obligations and not legal advice. See this object on the map

Address and citation

This object has an address of its own that is never renamed or reused. Store the identifier in your own file, not the title or the link.

Identifier
praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-75-market-surveillance-assistance
Payload hash (sha256)
9ae93e711b67b4eb9e0212da4542e3e5d0eb4495a90fe1b956b58472f4461925

Citation line

Praxikon, "Article 75: market surveillance, mutual assistance and the powers of the AI Office", praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-75-market-surveillance-assistance@1.0.0, dataset praxikon:sys:registry:dataset:ai-act-implementation-graph 2.2.0 (schema 1.5.0), effective_at 2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z, known_at 2026-09-06T00:00:00.000Z, sha256 9ae93e711b67b4eb9e0212da4542e3e5d0eb4495a90fe1b956b58472f4461925
Version
1.0.0
Legal time (effective_at)
8 August 2026
Knowledge time (known_at)
14 August 2026
Closed on
Not closed
Application date
2 August 2026
Topics
enforcement, governance, gpai

Review status: Placed against the official source (14 August 2026). Next check due by 10 February 2027. The check date is the knowledge date of this version; no later recheck has been recorded.

Who must act and who is affected

On an obligation the addressee is recorded separately from the party that is merely affected. That difference decides who a supervisory authority addresses and who has work to do without the duty resting on them.

Duty holder

Affected actor

  • Deployerpraxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer

Oversight

Evidence owner

What this object links to

Every relation appears below as a path: from the source with its locator, through the conditions and exceptions of the object carrying the relation, to the consequence. A locator belongs to a statement in the data and not to a relation, so the source is the source anchor of the carrying object.

Who carries the duty

1 of 1 shown

The duty rests on this role. A supervisory authority addresses this role when it is not met.

  1. Source

    Official fact on this object, with its locator.

    • EU Artificial Intelligence Act 2024/1689

      Locator: Article 75(2)-(3)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (31), Article 75(1)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (31), Article 75(1b) to (1d) and (2a)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (32), Article 75a

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (32), Articles 75b, 75c and 75d

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    Via

    • Condition | any ofApplies to AI systems based on a general-purpose AI model where the model and the system are developed by the same provider or by providers forming part of the same undertaking, and to AI systems that constitute or are integrated into a very large online platform or very large online search engine designated in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2022/2065. The exclusive competence applies to the providers of those systems, and to deployers only where they are also the provider or form part of the same undertaking as the provider.
    • Condition | allThe allocation of competence itself operates from 2 August 2026, because Article 75 sits in Chapter IX. It covers the obligations that apply at that moment, such as the prohibition in Article 5, the transparency duties of Article 50 and the obligations for general-purpose AI models. The two literal duties the amending regulation places on the provider, the reporting route of paragraph 1a and the fees of paragraph 1e, attach to high-risk status and therefore follow 2 December 2027; they sit in the separate object article-75-ai-office-high-risk-duties.
    • ExceptionParagraph 1, point (a) carves four groups out of the exclusive competence of the AI Office: AI systems related to products covered by the Union harmonisation legislation listed in Annex I, systems referred to in point 2 of Annex III, systems provided by law enforcement authorities, border management authorities and financial institutions insofar as they fall under Article 74(6), and systems referred to in point 8 of Annex III as regards the administration of justice. Who is competent instead differs per group and is not always "the market surveillance authority": for financial institutions Article 74(6) points to the national authority responsible for their financial supervision, and for law enforcement, border management and the administration of justice Article 74(8) has the Member State designate either the data protection supervisory authority or another authority under the same conditions. Which body that is per Member State does not follow from the Regulation.

    As long as this exception is not ruled out, the outcome stays conditional and you have to establish it yourself.

    Consequence

Who is affected without being the addressee

1 of 1 shown

This role is practically affected without being the addressee: it receives the information, has to cooperate, or absorbs the consequences in its own process.

  1. Source

    Official fact on this object, with its locator.

    • EU Artificial Intelligence Act 2024/1689

      Locator: Article 75(2)-(3)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (31), Article 75(1)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (31), Article 75(1b) to (1d) and (2a)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (32), Article 75a

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (32), Articles 75b, 75c and 75d

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    Via

    • Condition | any ofApplies to AI systems based on a general-purpose AI model where the model and the system are developed by the same provider or by providers forming part of the same undertaking, and to AI systems that constitute or are integrated into a very large online platform or very large online search engine designated in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2022/2065. The exclusive competence applies to the providers of those systems, and to deployers only where they are also the provider or form part of the same undertaking as the provider.
    • Condition | allThe allocation of competence itself operates from 2 August 2026, because Article 75 sits in Chapter IX. It covers the obligations that apply at that moment, such as the prohibition in Article 5, the transparency duties of Article 50 and the obligations for general-purpose AI models. The two literal duties the amending regulation places on the provider, the reporting route of paragraph 1a and the fees of paragraph 1e, attach to high-risk status and therefore follow 2 December 2027; they sit in the separate object article-75-ai-office-high-risk-duties.
    • ExceptionParagraph 1, point (a) carves four groups out of the exclusive competence of the AI Office: AI systems related to products covered by the Union harmonisation legislation listed in Annex I, systems referred to in point 2 of Annex III, systems provided by law enforcement authorities, border management authorities and financial institutions insofar as they fall under Article 74(6), and systems referred to in point 8 of Annex III as regards the administration of justice. Who is competent instead differs per group and is not always "the market surveillance authority": for financial institutions Article 74(6) points to the national authority responsible for their financial supervision, and for law enforcement, border management and the administration of justice Article 74(8) has the Member State designate either the data protection supervisory authority or another authority under the same conditions. Which body that is per Member State does not follow from the Regulation.

    As long as this exception is not ruled out, the outcome stays conditional and you have to establish it yourself.

    Consequence

    • ActorDeployer

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer

Who supervises this

2 of 2 shown

This role supervises and receives the notifications. It is the institutional role, not the national body that fills it.

  1. Source

    Official fact on this object, with its locator.

    • EU Artificial Intelligence Act 2024/1689

      Locator: Article 75(2)-(3)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (31), Article 75(1)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (31), Article 75(1b) to (1d) and (2a)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (32), Article 75a

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (32), Articles 75b, 75c and 75d

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    Via

    • Condition | any ofApplies to AI systems based on a general-purpose AI model where the model and the system are developed by the same provider or by providers forming part of the same undertaking, and to AI systems that constitute or are integrated into a very large online platform or very large online search engine designated in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2022/2065. The exclusive competence applies to the providers of those systems, and to deployers only where they are also the provider or form part of the same undertaking as the provider.
    • Condition | allThe allocation of competence itself operates from 2 August 2026, because Article 75 sits in Chapter IX. It covers the obligations that apply at that moment, such as the prohibition in Article 5, the transparency duties of Article 50 and the obligations for general-purpose AI models. The two literal duties the amending regulation places on the provider, the reporting route of paragraph 1a and the fees of paragraph 1e, attach to high-risk status and therefore follow 2 December 2027; they sit in the separate object article-75-ai-office-high-risk-duties.
    • ExceptionParagraph 1, point (a) carves four groups out of the exclusive competence of the AI Office: AI systems related to products covered by the Union harmonisation legislation listed in Annex I, systems referred to in point 2 of Annex III, systems provided by law enforcement authorities, border management authorities and financial institutions insofar as they fall under Article 74(6), and systems referred to in point 8 of Annex III as regards the administration of justice. Who is competent instead differs per group and is not always "the market surveillance authority": for financial institutions Article 74(6) points to the national authority responsible for their financial supervision, and for law enforcement, border management and the administration of justice Article 74(8) has the Member State designate either the data protection supervisory authority or another authority under the same conditions. Which body that is per Member State does not follow from the Regulation.

    As long as this exception is not ruled out, the outcome stays conditional and you have to establish it yourself.

    Consequence

Who owns the evidence

1 of 1 shown

This duty holder creates, maintains and can produce the evidence.

  1. Source

    Official fact on this object, with its locator.

    • EU Artificial Intelligence Act 2024/1689

      Locator: Article 75(2)-(3)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (31), Article 75(1)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (31), Article 75(1b) to (1d) and (2a)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (32), Article 75a

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (32), Articles 75b, 75c and 75d

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    Via

    • Condition | any ofApplies to AI systems based on a general-purpose AI model where the model and the system are developed by the same provider or by providers forming part of the same undertaking, and to AI systems that constitute or are integrated into a very large online platform or very large online search engine designated in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2022/2065. The exclusive competence applies to the providers of those systems, and to deployers only where they are also the provider or form part of the same undertaking as the provider.
    • Condition | allThe allocation of competence itself operates from 2 August 2026, because Article 75 sits in Chapter IX. It covers the obligations that apply at that moment, such as the prohibition in Article 5, the transparency duties of Article 50 and the obligations for general-purpose AI models. The two literal duties the amending regulation places on the provider, the reporting route of paragraph 1a and the fees of paragraph 1e, attach to high-risk status and therefore follow 2 December 2027; they sit in the separate object article-75-ai-office-high-risk-duties.
    • ExceptionParagraph 1, point (a) carves four groups out of the exclusive competence of the AI Office: AI systems related to products covered by the Union harmonisation legislation listed in Annex I, systems referred to in point 2 of Annex III, systems provided by law enforcement authorities, border management authorities and financial institutions insofar as they fall under Article 74(6), and systems referred to in point 8 of Annex III as regards the administration of justice. Who is competent instead differs per group and is not always "the market surveillance authority": for financial institutions Article 74(6) points to the national authority responsible for their financial supervision, and for law enforcement, border management and the administration of justice Article 74(8) has the Member State designate either the data protection supervisory authority or another authority under the same conditions. Which body that is per Member State does not follow from the Regulation.

    As long as this exception is not ruled out, the outcome stays conditional and you have to establish it yourself.

    Consequence

What has to be done

1 of 1 shown

This is what concretely has to be done under the obligation.

  1. Source

    Official fact on this object, with its locator.

    • EU Artificial Intelligence Act 2024/1689

      Locator: Article 75(2)-(3)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (31), Article 75(1)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (31), Article 75(1b) to (1d) and (2a)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (32), Article 75a

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (32), Articles 75b, 75c and 75d

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    Via

    • Condition | any ofApplies to AI systems based on a general-purpose AI model where the model and the system are developed by the same provider or by providers forming part of the same undertaking, and to AI systems that constitute or are integrated into a very large online platform or very large online search engine designated in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2022/2065. The exclusive competence applies to the providers of those systems, and to deployers only where they are also the provider or form part of the same undertaking as the provider.
    • Condition | allThe allocation of competence itself operates from 2 August 2026, because Article 75 sits in Chapter IX. It covers the obligations that apply at that moment, such as the prohibition in Article 5, the transparency duties of Article 50 and the obligations for general-purpose AI models. The two literal duties the amending regulation places on the provider, the reporting route of paragraph 1a and the fees of paragraph 1e, attach to high-risk status and therefore follow 2 December 2027; they sit in the separate object article-75-ai-office-high-risk-duties.
    • ExceptionParagraph 1, point (a) carves four groups out of the exclusive competence of the AI Office: AI systems related to products covered by the Union harmonisation legislation listed in Annex I, systems referred to in point 2 of Annex III, systems provided by law enforcement authorities, border management authorities and financial institutions insofar as they fall under Article 74(6), and systems referred to in point 8 of Annex III as regards the administration of justice. Who is competent instead differs per group and is not always "the market surveillance authority": for financial institutions Article 74(6) points to the national authority responsible for their financial supervision, and for law enforcement, border management and the administration of justice Article 74(8) has the Member State designate either the data protection supervisory authority or another authority under the same conditions. Which body that is per Member State does not follow from the Regulation.

    As long as this exception is not ruled out, the outcome stays conditional and you have to establish it yourself.

    Consequence

What has to be recorded

1 of 1 shown

This is what has to be in the file to show that the action was carried out.

  1. Source

    Official fact on this object, with its locator.

    • EU Artificial Intelligence Act 2024/1689

      Locator: Article 75(2)-(3)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (31), Article 75(1)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (31), Article 75(1b) to (1d) and (2a)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (32), Article 75a

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (32), Articles 75b, 75c and 75d

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    Via

    • Condition | any ofApplies to AI systems based on a general-purpose AI model where the model and the system are developed by the same provider or by providers forming part of the same undertaking, and to AI systems that constitute or are integrated into a very large online platform or very large online search engine designated in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2022/2065. The exclusive competence applies to the providers of those systems, and to deployers only where they are also the provider or form part of the same undertaking as the provider.
    • Condition | allThe allocation of competence itself operates from 2 August 2026, because Article 75 sits in Chapter IX. It covers the obligations that apply at that moment, such as the prohibition in Article 5, the transparency duties of Article 50 and the obligations for general-purpose AI models. The two literal duties the amending regulation places on the provider, the reporting route of paragraph 1a and the fees of paragraph 1e, attach to high-risk status and therefore follow 2 December 2027; they sit in the separate object article-75-ai-office-high-risk-duties.
    • ExceptionParagraph 1, point (a) carves four groups out of the exclusive competence of the AI Office: AI systems related to products covered by the Union harmonisation legislation listed in Annex I, systems referred to in point 2 of Annex III, systems provided by law enforcement authorities, border management authorities and financial institutions insofar as they fall under Article 74(6), and systems referred to in point 8 of Annex III as regards the administration of justice. Who is competent instead differs per group and is not always "the market surveillance authority": for financial institutions Article 74(6) points to the national authority responsible for their financial supervision, and for law enforcement, border management and the administration of justice Article 74(8) has the Member State designate either the data protection supervisory authority or another authority under the same conditions. Which body that is per Member State does not follow from the Regulation.

    As long as this exception is not ruled out, the outcome stays conditional and you have to establish it yourself.

    Consequence

What keeps it in place

1 of 1 shown

This is what keeps compliance in place over time, periodic or event-driven.

  1. Source

    Official fact on this object, with its locator.

    • EU Artificial Intelligence Act 2024/1689

      Locator: Article 75(2)-(3)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (31), Article 75(1)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (31), Article 75(1b) to (1d) and (2a)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (32), Article 75a

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (32), Articles 75b, 75c and 75d

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    Via

    • Condition | any ofApplies to AI systems based on a general-purpose AI model where the model and the system are developed by the same provider or by providers forming part of the same undertaking, and to AI systems that constitute or are integrated into a very large online platform or very large online search engine designated in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2022/2065. The exclusive competence applies to the providers of those systems, and to deployers only where they are also the provider or form part of the same undertaking as the provider.
    • Condition | allThe allocation of competence itself operates from 2 August 2026, because Article 75 sits in Chapter IX. It covers the obligations that apply at that moment, such as the prohibition in Article 5, the transparency duties of Article 50 and the obligations for general-purpose AI models. The two literal duties the amending regulation places on the provider, the reporting route of paragraph 1a and the fees of paragraph 1e, attach to high-risk status and therefore follow 2 December 2027; they sit in the separate object article-75-ai-office-high-risk-duties.
    • ExceptionParagraph 1, point (a) carves four groups out of the exclusive competence of the AI Office: AI systems related to products covered by the Union harmonisation legislation listed in Annex I, systems referred to in point 2 of Annex III, systems provided by law enforcement authorities, border management authorities and financial institutions insofar as they fall under Article 74(6), and systems referred to in point 8 of Annex III as regards the administration of justice. Who is competent instead differs per group and is not always "the market surveillance authority": for financial institutions Article 74(6) points to the national authority responsible for their financial supervision, and for law enforcement, border management and the administration of justice Article 74(8) has the Member State designate either the data protection supervisory authority or another authority under the same conditions. Which body that is per Member State does not follow from the Regulation.

    As long as this exception is not ruled out, the outcome stays conditional and you have to establish it yourself.

    Consequence

Public tools

1 of 1 shown

This is the public route a reader can actually use.

  1. Source

    Official fact on this object, with its locator.

    • EU Artificial Intelligence Act 2024/1689

      Locator: Article 75(2)-(3)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (31), Article 75(1)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (31), Article 75(1b) to (1d) and (2a)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (32), Article 75a

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (32), Articles 75b, 75c and 75d

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    Via

    • Condition | any ofApplies to AI systems based on a general-purpose AI model where the model and the system are developed by the same provider or by providers forming part of the same undertaking, and to AI systems that constitute or are integrated into a very large online platform or very large online search engine designated in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2022/2065. The exclusive competence applies to the providers of those systems, and to deployers only where they are also the provider or form part of the same undertaking as the provider.
    • Condition | allThe allocation of competence itself operates from 2 August 2026, because Article 75 sits in Chapter IX. It covers the obligations that apply at that moment, such as the prohibition in Article 5, the transparency duties of Article 50 and the obligations for general-purpose AI models. The two literal duties the amending regulation places on the provider, the reporting route of paragraph 1a and the fees of paragraph 1e, attach to high-risk status and therefore follow 2 December 2027; they sit in the separate object article-75-ai-office-high-risk-duties.
    • ExceptionParagraph 1, point (a) carves four groups out of the exclusive competence of the AI Office: AI systems related to products covered by the Union harmonisation legislation listed in Annex I, systems referred to in point 2 of Annex III, systems provided by law enforcement authorities, border management authorities and financial institutions insofar as they fall under Article 74(6), and systems referred to in point 8 of Annex III as regards the administration of justice. Who is competent instead differs per group and is not always "the market surveillance authority": for financial institutions Article 74(6) points to the national authority responsible for their financial supervision, and for law enforcement, border management and the administration of justice Article 74(8) has the Member State designate either the data protection supervisory authority or another authority under the same conditions. Which body that is per Member State does not follow from the Regulation.

    As long as this exception is not ruled out, the outcome stays conditional and you have to establish it yourself.

    Consequence

What points at this object

Objects hanging off this obligation

4 of 4 shown

The object belongs to this obligation. The source line it hangs off sits there.

  1. Source

    This object carries no official fact of its own. The source line below sits on the obligation it hangs off; the link itself is recorded editorially.

    • EU Artificial Intelligence Act 2024/1689

      Locator: Article 75(2)-(3)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (31), Article 75(1)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (31), Article 75(1b) to (1d) and (2a)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (32), Article 75a

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (32), Articles 75b, 75c and 75d

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    Via

    • Condition | allTo be carried out before a system is placed on the market or put into service, and again whenever the underlying model, the provider or the corporate structure changes.

    Relation recorded on: Establish per system who your supervisor is

    Consequence

  2. Source

    This object carries no official fact of its own. The source line below sits on the obligation it hangs off; the link itself is recorded editorially.

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (31), Article 75(1a) and (1e)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    • EU Artificial Intelligence Act 2024/1689

      Locator: Article 75(2)-(3)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (31), Article 75(1)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (31), Article 75(1b) to (1d) and (2a)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (32), Article 75a

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (32), Articles 75b, 75c and 75d

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    Via

    No condition or exception recorded on this object.

    Relation recorded on: Intake and deadline tracking for a demand or an inspection

    Consequence

  3. Source

    This object carries no official fact of its own. The source line below sits on the obligation it hangs off; the link itself is recorded editorially.

    • EU Artificial Intelligence Act 2024/1689

      Locator: Article 75(2)-(3)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (31), Article 75(1)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (31), Article 75(1b) to (1d) and (2a)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (32), Article 75a

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (32), Articles 75b, 75c and 75d

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    Via

    No condition or exception recorded on this object.

    Relation recorded on: Record of the competent supervisor per system

    Consequence

  4. Source

    This object carries no official fact of its own. The source line below sits on the obligation it hangs off; the link itself is recorded editorially.

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (31), Article 75(1a) and (1e)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    • EU Artificial Intelligence Act 2024/1689

      Locator: Article 75(2)-(3)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (31), Article 75(1)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (31), Article 75(1b) to (1d) and (2a)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (32), Article 75a

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (32), Articles 75b, 75c and 75d

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    Via

    No condition or exception recorded on this object.

    Relation recorded on: Full text of Article 75

    Consequence

What this object states

Official fact

Attributable to a named primary source, with a locator. Where they differ, the official source prevails.

  • Paragraph 2 provides that where the relevant market surveillance authorities have sufficient reason to consider general-purpose AI systems that can be used directly by deployers for at least one purpose that is classified as high-risk to be non-compliant with the requirements laid down in this Regulation, they shall cooperate with the AI Office to carry out compliance evaluations, and shall inform the Board and other market surveillance authorities accordingly. Paragraph 3 provides that where a market surveillance authority is unable to conclude its investigation of the high-risk AI system because of its inability to access certain information related to the general-purpose AI model despite having made all appropriate efforts to obtain that information, it may submit a reasoned request to the AI Office, by which access to that information shall be enforced. In that case the AI Office shall supply to the applicant authority without delay, and in any event within 30 days, any information that the AI Office considers to be relevant in order to establish whether a high-risk AI system is non-compliant. Market surveillance authorities shall safeguard the confidentiality of the information that they obtain in accordance with Article 78. The procedure provided for in Chapter VI of Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 shall apply mutatis mutandis.

  • Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 replaces the heading of Article 75 with "Market surveillance and control of AI systems and mutual assistance" and replaces paragraph 1: the AI Office shall be exclusively competent for the supervision and enforcement of the obligations under this Regulation in relation to, point (a), AI systems based on general-purpose AI models where the model and the system are developed by the same provider, or by providers forming part of the same undertaking as that provider, with the exception of (i) AI systems related to products covered by the Union harmonisation legislation listed in Annex I, (ii) AI systems referred to in point 2 of Annex III, (iii) AI systems provided by law enforcement authorities, border management authorities and financial institutions insofar as those systems fall under Article 74(6), and (iv) AI systems referred to in point 8 of Annex III as regards the administration of justice; and, point (b), AI systems that constitute or that are integrated into a very large online platform or very large online search engine designated in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2022/2065. The final subparagraph provides that the exclusive competence applies to the providers of those systems, and to the deployers of those systems only when they are also the provider or form part of the same undertaking as the provider.

    • Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (31), Article 75(1)praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744Open official source

  • The same regulation inserts paragraphs 1b to 1d and paragraph 2a. Paragraph 1b requires the authorities involved in the application of the Regulation to cooperate actively with the AI Office and to provide it the necessary assistance, including in connection with inspections or other enforcement measures carried out in the territory of a Member State. Paragraph 1c provides that the Office shall be assisted by the relevant market surveillance authority when investigatory or enforcement action involves access to a public authority data or AI system. Paragraph 1d provides that before taking a decision that would prohibit or restrict the system being made available or put into service on a national market, or a decision to withdraw or recall it from such market, the Office shall without undue delay notify the market surveillance authority competent for that market of its intention. Paragraph 2a allows a market surveillance authority with well-founded and sufficient reasons to suspect an infringement to request, through the single point of contact designated under Article 70(2), that the AI Office assess the matter; that request shall be duly reasoned and shall state at least the provider or deployer concerned, the relevant facts and the provisions allegedly infringed, and the requesting authority. The Office informs the point of contact without undue delay and in any event no later than four months after receipt whether it will exercise its powers, or why it will not.

    • Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (31), Article 75(1b) to (1d) and (2a)praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744Open official source

  • Article 75a gives the AI Office all the powers of a market surveillance authority provided for in this Section and in Article 14(4) and Article 16(3) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1020, and authorises it to fully reclaim from the relevant operator the totality of the costs of its supervision and enforcement activities with respect to instances of non-compliance. Paragraph 2 allows the Office, on reasonable grounds, to start an investigation, of which it notifies the operator, and provides that it may exercise its powers on its own initiative or following a complaint received pursuant to Article 85, even before starting an investigation. Paragraph 3 allows information requests by simple request or by decision; with a simple request the Office states that there is no obligation to reply but that a voluntary reply must be correct and not misleading, and in both cases it indicates the fines provided for in Article 99(5), and by decision also the right to review by the Court of Justice; a copy of the request goes to the national market surveillance authority. Paragraph 4 allows remote and on-site inspections in which officials may enter business premises, examine and copy books and data, ask for oral or written explanations and seal premises; where national law requires authorisation by a judicial authority, the Office applies for it and the national judicial authority verifies that the coercive measures envisaged are neither arbitrary nor excessive. Paragraph 6 allows the Office to order operators to provide access to and explanations relating to their AI systems and to impose on an operator an obligation to retain all data and documents deemed necessary to assess compliance. Paragraph 7 allows the appointment of independent external experts and auditors, and paragraph 8 provides that information collected shall be used only for the purpose of this Regulation.

    • Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (32), Article 75apraxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744Open official source

  • Article 75b allows the Office to make commitments offered by the operator during proceedings under Article 75a(2) binding by decision and to declare that there are no further grounds for action; it may reopen the proceedings where there has been a material change in the facts, where the operator acts contrary to its commitments, or where the decision was based on incomplete, incorrect or misleading information, and it rejects inadequate commitments in a reasoned decision. Article 75c provides in paragraph 1 that the Office adopts a decision establishing non-compliance, in paragraph 2 that it first communicates its preliminary findings, and in paragraph 3 that the decision may order the operator to take the necessary measures within a reasonable period and that the operator shall provide the Office with a description of the measures it has taken. Paragraph 4 provides that such a decision may be accompanied by penalties in accordance with Article 99(3) to (7), which apply mutatis mutandis to the AI Office, and that in particular the following are subject to fines as referred to in Article 99(4): (a) infringement of any applicable provision of this Regulation, including those not listed in Article 99(4), (b) failure to comply with decisions or measures adopted pursuant to the powers listed in Article 14(4) or Article 16(3) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 as well as those specified in Article 75a, and (c) failure to comply with a commitment made binding pursuant to Article 75b; the supply of incorrect, incomplete or misleading information to the Office is subject to the fines of Article 99(5). Paragraph 5 allows periodic penalty payments to compel submission to an investigation, compliance with an information request ordered by decision, submission to an ordered inspection, the provision of correct or complete answers or explanations in the context of an ordered inspection, compliance with corrective actions, compliance with a binding commitment, or compliance with a decision under paragraph 1; those payments shall, where applicable, not exceed 5 % of the average daily income or worldwide annual turnover in the preceding financial year per day. Paragraph 8 sets a limitation period: the Dutch edition in the Official Journal says three years, the English edition says five years. Article 75d applies Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 mutatis mutandis in paragraph 1, safeguards the rights of defence and access to the file under negotiated disclosure in paragraph 2, and provides in paragraph 4 that the Office publishes its decisions under Articles 75b and 75c stating the names of the parties and the main content, including any penalties imposed.

    • Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (32), Articles 75b, 75c and 75dpraxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744Open official source

Our interpretation

Our own reading. It can change without the law changing, and it is not the position of a supervisory authority.

  • The practical question behind this provision is simple and rarely asked: who comes knocking. What is new is not that the AI Office appears, because the old paragraph 1 already gave it powers to monitor and supervise systems where the model and the system come from the same provider. What is new is that this competence becomes exclusive rather than shared, that it extends to providers within the same undertaking, that a second category is added in the form of designated very large online platforms and search engines, that four groups are carved out of it, and that Articles 75a to 75d give the Office a toolkit of its own. That toolkit is the point. An information request comes as a simple request or by decision; with a simple request you need not answer, but whoever answers voluntarily must answer correctly and not misleadingly, and with a decision the clock runs. An inspection extends to entering business premises, copying data and sealing cabinets and systems, with a real safeguard in front of it: where national law requires judicial authorisation, the Office applies for it and that judge verifies that the coercive measures are neither arbitrary nor excessive. Commitments are a genuine way out, but they become binding, the decision is published with the names of the parties, and the proceedings reopen if the facts change materially, if you act contrary to them, or if your information turns out to be incomplete or incorrect. Two things that are rarely seen. The trigger need not come from an authority: Article 75a(2) lets the Office exercise its powers following a complaint under Article 85, even before an investigation is running. And cost recovery is not unconditional: the Office may fully reclaim its supervision costs insofar as they relate to instances of non-compliance, so supervision costs you money when you are in the wrong and not merely because supervision happened. The line between the two regimes sits in paragraph 1 and it is not trivial; answer it once per system and record it, rather than working it out at the moment a demand arrives.

    • Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, points (31) and (32)praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744Open official source

Recommended step

A practical step we consider appropriate. Not an obligation following from the Regulation.

  • Determine per AI system which authority is competent, record the outcome and the reasoning, and revisit that record whenever the model, the provider or the corporate structure changes. Designate someone who receives an information request, a notice of investigation or an announced inspection, and have that person first establish whether it is a simple request or a decision, because that determines whether there is a duty to reply and which period runs. Make sure technical documentation, logs and assessments can be produced in full and per version on request, and take into account that under Article 75a(6) the Office may order you to retain all data and documents it deems necessary; such an order overrides your own deletion routines. Do not count on harmless incompleteness: incorrect, incomplete or misleading information is a separate ground for a fine under Article 99(5), and a periodic penalty payment can also be imposed where you fail to give correct or complete answers during an ordered inspection.

    • Locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (32), Articles 75a and 75cpraxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744Open official source

When this applies

  1. 1Applies to AI systems based on a general-purpose AI model where the model and the system are developed by the same provider or by providers forming part of the same undertaking, and to AI systems that constitute or are integrated into a very large online platform or very large online search engine designated in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2022/2065. The exclusive competence applies to the providers of those systems, and to deployers only where they are also the provider or form part of the same undertaking as the provider.
  2. 2The allocation of competence itself operates from 2 August 2026, because Article 75 sits in Chapter IX. It covers the obligations that apply at that moment, such as the prohibition in Article 5, the transparency duties of Article 50 and the obligations for general-purpose AI models. The two literal duties the amending regulation places on the provider, the reporting route of paragraph 1a and the fees of paragraph 1e, attach to high-risk status and therefore follow 2 December 2027; they sit in the separate object article-75-ai-office-high-risk-duties.

When this does not apply

  • Paragraph 1, point (a) carves four groups out of the exclusive competence of the AI Office: AI systems related to products covered by the Union harmonisation legislation listed in Annex I, systems referred to in point 2 of Annex III, systems provided by law enforcement authorities, border management authorities and financial institutions insofar as they fall under Article 74(6), and systems referred to in point 8 of Annex III as regards the administration of justice. Who is competent instead differs per group and is not always "the market surveillance authority": for financial institutions Article 74(6) points to the national authority responsible for their financial supervision, and for law enforcement, border management and the administration of justice Article 74(8) has the Member State designate either the data protection supervisory authority or another authority under the same conditions. Which body that is per Member State does not follow from the Regulation.

Referring to this object

Citation block

Copy this reference into your advice, article or file. The identifier, the version and the hash keep the statement findable later, even once the dataset has moved on.

Reference

Praxikon, "Article 75: market surveillance, mutual assistance and the powers of the AI Office",
praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-75-market-surveillance-assistance@1.0.0,
dataset praxikon:sys:registry:dataset:ai-act-implementation-graph 2.2.0 (schema 1.5.0),
effective_at 2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z, known_at 2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z,
sha256 9ae93e711b67b4eb9e0212da4542e3e5d0eb4495a90fe1b956b58472f4461925,
https://www.praxikon.com/en/verkenner/obligation/article-75-market-surveillance-assistance
(https://www.praxikon.com/api/v1/obligations?id=praxikon%3Aeu%3Aai-act%3Aobligation%3Aarticle-75-market-surveillance-assistance&effective_at=2026-08-08&known_at=2026-08-14&lang=en, accessed 2026-09-20)

Short form

praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-75-market-surveillance-assistance@1.0.0 (sha256 9ae93e71)

BibTeX

@misc{praxikon-eu-ai-act-obligation-article-75-market-surveillance-assistance-1-0-0,
  author       = {{Praxikon}},
  title        = {Article 75: market surveillance, mutual assistance and the powers of the AI Office},
  year         = {2026},
  version      = {1.0.0},
  number       = {praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-75-market-surveillance-assistance},
  howpublished = {AI Act Change \& Evidence Graph, dataset 2.2.0, schema 1.5.0},
  note         = {effective_at 2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z; known_at 2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z; sha256 9ae93e711b67b4eb9e0212da4542e3e5d0eb4495a90fe1b956b58472f4461925},
  url          = {https://www.praxikon.com/en/verkenner/obligation/article-75-market-surveillance-assistance},
  urldate      = {2026-09-20},
  language     = {en}
}

CSL JSON

[
  {
    "id": "praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-75-market-surveillance-assistance@1.0.0",
    "type": "dataset",
    "title": "Article 75: market surveillance, mutual assistance and the powers of the AI Office",
    "container-title": "AI Act Change & Evidence Graph",
    "publisher": "Praxikon",
    "version": "1.0.0",
    "number": "praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-75-market-surveillance-assistance",
    "URL": "https://www.praxikon.com/en/verkenner/obligation/article-75-market-surveillance-assistance",
    "language": "en",
    "issued": {
      "date-parts": [
        [
          2026,
          8,
          14
        ]
      ]
    },
    "accessed": {
      "date-parts": [
        [
          2026,
          9,
          20
        ]
      ]
    },
    "note": "dataset praxikon:sys:registry:dataset:ai-act-implementation-graph 2.2.0; schema 1.5.0; effective_at 2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z; known_at 2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z; sha256 9ae93e711b67b4eb9e0212da4542e3e5d0eb4495a90fe1b956b58472f4461925; retrieved_from https://www.praxikon.com/api/v1/obligations?id=praxikon%3Aeu%3Aai-act%3Aobligation%3Aarticle-75-market-surveillance-assistance&effective_at=2026-08-08&known_at=2026-08-14&lang=en; licence https://www.praxikon.com/nl/legal/terms"
  }
]

How to verify a reference later is set out in the methodology. Terms

For agents and integrations

This page and the machine output come from the same object and the same two time axes.

Open as JSONOpen as JSON-LDHuman explanationRead the methodology