Why this object hangs off that object

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.

Placed against the official source | conformity, standards

Article 4a grants permission rather than instruction, and to two different sets of parties. Paragraph 1 allows only the provider of a high-risk AI system to process special categories of personal data by way of exception, to the extent strictly necessary for bias detection and correction within the meaning of Article 10(2), points (f) and (g), and only where all six conditions (a) to (f) are met. Paragraph 2 opens the same room to providers and deployers of other AI systems and models and to deployers of high-risk systems, but only for bias likely to affect the health and safety of persons, to have a negative impact on fundamental rights or to lead to discrimination prohibited under Union law, and subject to the same six conditions. Until 27 July 2026 this basis sat in Article 10(5).

Placed against the official source | fundamental-rights, high-risk-requirements

The provider of a general-purpose AI model that meets the condition in Article 51(1), point (a), notifies the Commission without delay and in any event within two weeks, with the information needed to demonstrate that the requirement has been met. With that notification the provider may present substantiated arguments that the model exceptionally does not present systemic risks after all.

Placed against the official source | gpai-systemic-risk

Documentation, information, copyright and transparency duties for providers of general-purpose AI models.

Placed against the official source | gpai

A provider established in a third country appoints, by written mandate, an authorised representative established in the Union before placing a general-purpose AI model on the Union market. The representative performs the tasks the mandate assigns to it and provides a copy of that mandate to the AI Office upon request. The mandate empowers it at least to verify the documentation, keep a copy available for ten years, provide information and cooperate, and appoints it as the point of contact in addition to or instead of the provider.

Hangs off: Article 53: GPAI model providers, Article 55: GPAI models with systemic risk

Placed against the official source | gpai, value-chain

Additional duties for the most capable general-purpose AI models, on top of Article 53.

Placed against the official source | gpai-systemic-risk