Why this object hangs off that object

Annex III names eight areas in which an AI system can be high-risk under Article 6(2). This object publishes those eight areas as separate objects, so that a question about recruitment, assessment, creditworthiness or border control lands on the point that names it rather than on the list as a whole.

Placed against the official source | high-risk

Classification route for standalone high-risk AI systems under Article 6(2) and Annex III.

Placed against the official source | high-risk

Quality and governance requirements for training, validation and test data of high-risk AI.

Placed against the official source | high-risk-requirements

The technical file demonstrating before market placement that a high-risk system meets the requirements.

Placed against the official source | high-risk-requirements

High-risk AI systems placed on the market or put into service before the date of application of Chapter III, since the Digital Omnibus 2 December 2027 for Annex III systems and 2 August 2028 for Annex I systems, come under the high-risk requirements of that Chapter only once their design is significantly changed as from that date. This is not an exemption from the whole Regulation: Article 4 and Article 50 keep running. For systems intended to be used by public authorities the carve out falls away entirely: their providers and deployers must in any case comply with the requirements and obligations by 2 August 2030.

Placed against the official source | high-risk, timeline

Automatic recording of events over the lifetime of a high-risk AI system.

Placed against the official source | high-risk-requirements

Comprehensible instructions for use and system information so deployers can operate the system correctly.

Placed against the official source | high-risk-requirements

High-risk AI must be designed so that humans can effectively oversee it and intervene.

Placed against the official source | high-risk-requirements

Appropriate levels of performance, robustness and security across the lifecycle of high-risk AI.

Placed against the official source | high-risk-requirements

Article 16 is the summary list of duties for providers: twelve points that route onward to the quality management system, the documentation, the logs, the conformity assessment, the EU declaration of conformity, the CE marking, the registration, corrective actions and accessibility requirements.

Placed against the official source | high-risk-requirements

The documented quality system through which a high-risk AI provider structurally assures compliance.

Placed against the official source | high-risk-requirements

The provider of a high-risk AI system keeps the technical documentation, the quality management system documentation, the changes approved by notified bodies and the decisions they issued, and the EU declaration of conformity at the disposal of the national competent authorities for a period ending ten years after the system has been placed on the market or put into service.

Placed against the official source | high-risk-requirements

A provider that considers, or has reason to consider, that a high-risk AI system it has placed on the market or put into service is not in conformity with the Regulation must immediately take the necessary corrective actions and inform the distributors accordingly, and, where applicable, also the deployers, the authorised representative and the importers. Where that system also presents a risk within the meaning of Article 79(1), the provider must immediately investigate the causes and inform the competent market surveillance authorities and, where applicable, the notified body that issued a certificate under Article 44.

Placed against the official source | high-risk-requirements, post-market

Upon a reasoned request by a competent authority, the provider of a high-risk AI system provides all the information and documentation necessary to demonstrate conformity with the requirements of Chapter III, Section 2, in a language which can be easily understood by the authority in one of the official languages of the institutions of the Union as indicated by the Member State concerned. Upon the same request the provider also gives, as applicable, access to the automatically generated logs, to the extent those logs are under its control.

Placed against the official source | high-risk-requirements

Providers and deployers take measures that support the development of AI literacy.

Placed against the official source | ai-literacy

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

The provider of a high-risk AI system listed in Annex III, or where applicable its authorised representative, registers itself and that system in the EU database before it is placed on the market or put into service. The same duty applies to the provider that concludes under Article 6(3) that its Annex III system is precisely not high-risk: that provider too registers itself and that system. The deployer that is a public authority or a Union body, or that acts on behalf of such an authority, registers itself, selects the system and registers its use. For the areas of law enforcement, migration, asylum and border control management the registration goes into a secure non-public section with fewer fields, to which only the Commission and the national authorities referred to in Article 74(8) have access. For the systems in point 2 of Annex III registration does not run through the EU database but at national level.

Placed against the official source | conformity, high-risk

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 prohibition of AI practices carrying unacceptable risk, such as manipulation, social scoring and certain biometric applications.

Placed against the official source | prohibited-practices

Specific disclosure, marking and labelling duties for certain AI systems and synthetic content.

Placed against the official source | transparency

An AI system counts as high risk where it is intended to be used as a safety component of a product covered by the Union harmonisation legislation listed in Annex I, or is itself such a product, and that product is required to undergo a third-party conformity assessment. This route does not run through Annex III but through the product legislation that already applies to the product. For Section A products the requirements of Chapter III, Section 2, form part of the sectoral assessment under Article 43(3); for Section B products Article 2(2) limits the operation of this Regulation to a short list of provisions.

Placed against the official source | conformity, high-risk

The Digital Omnibus inserts three paragraphs into Article 6 that draw the notion of safety component more tightly: which AI systems do not qualify as safety components, which still do despite that exclusion because failure would endanger health and safety, and which mandatory third-party conformity assessment does not count. Paragraph 1a is written for the purposes of the Regulation as a whole and therefore bears on both the Annex I route and Annex III, point 2.

Placed against the official source | conformity, high-risk

If you want to test an Annex III high-risk AI system with real people and real outcomes before placing it on the market, a full regime applies: a plan, prior approval by the market surveillance authority, registration, informed consent and a maximum duration.

Placed against the official source | innovation

If you test a high-risk AI system in real world conditions outside an AI regulatory sandbox, freely-given informed consent must be obtained from every test subject before they participate. Beforehand the subject receives concise, clear, relevant and understandable information on five prescribed topics: the nature and objectives of the testing and the possible inconvenience, the conditions under which the testing is to be conducted including the expected duration of participation, their rights and guarantees including the right to refuse and the right to withdraw at any time without detriment and without justification, the arrangements for requesting the reversal or the disregarding of the outputs of the system, and the Union-wide unique single identification number with the contact details from whom further information can be obtained. The consent is dated and documented and the subject is given a copy.

Placed against the official source | fundamental-rights, innovation

The provider or, where applicable, the authorised representative enters the data listed in Sections A and B of Annex VIII into the EU database; the deployer who is, or who acts on behalf of, a public authority, agency or body enters the data listed in Section C. Information registered in accordance with Article 49 is publicly available in a user-friendly manner and machine-readable, except for the secure section covering law enforcement, migration, asylum and border control management and the registration of testing in real world conditions. Setting up and maintaining the database itself is a task of the Commission and not a duty of yours.

Placed against the official source | conformity, high-risk

Systematic monitoring of high-risk AI in real use, after market placement.

Placed against the official source | post-market

The duty to report serious incidents with high-risk AI, under strict deadlines.

Placed against the official source | post-market

If you are the provider of a high-risk AI system subject to the competence of the AI Office, you report serious incidents to the Office rather than to your national authority, with the machinery and the deadlines of Article 73(2) to (9) applying in full, and the Office still transmits the information to your national market surveillance authority. Where that system is subject to a third-party conformity assessment under Article 43, the Office is responsible for it, the notified body acts on behalf of the Commission, and you pay the costs directly to that body.

Placed against the official source | enforcement, governance, high-risk-requirements

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.

Placed against the official source | enforcement, governance, gpai

High-risk AI systems comply with the requirements of Chapter III, Section 2, and that is assessed taking into account the intended purpose and the generally acknowledged state of the art on AI and AI-related technologies, with the risk management system of Article 9 as the instrument. Where the system sits in a product also covered by the Union harmonisation legislation of Section A of Annex I, the provider is responsible for full compliance with all applicable requirements of that legislation, and may integrate the testing and reporting processes and the information and documentation on the product into the documentation and procedures that already exist there.

Placed against the official source | conformity, high-risk-requirements

A continuous, documented risk management system across the entire lifecycle of a high-risk AI system.

Placed against the official source | high-risk-requirements

The route from assessment to CE marking and EU database registration before market placement of high-risk AI.

Placed against the official source | conformity

Role shifts in the AI value chain and the mandatory representative for non-EU providers.

Placed against the official source | value-chain