Article 75(1a) and (1e): reporting to and assessment by the AI Office
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.
Paragraph 1a provides that, by way of derogation from Article 73, providers of high-risk AI systems subject to the competence of the AI Office pursuant to paragraph 1 of that Article shall report any serious incidents to the AI Office.
Praxikon tracks Article 75(1a) and (1e): reporting to and assessment by the AI Office under the EU AI Act, checked against the official source on 14 August 2026, citing the source for every statement.
- Status
- Upcoming
- Application date
- 2 December 2027
- Version
- 1.0.0
- Last reviewed
- 14 August 2026
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.
From source to evidence
Why this obligation applies, what it asks of you, and what you show for it.
Applies
Upcoming · 2 December 2027
For whom
Provider of an AI system
What you do
Route reporting and conformity assessment to the AI Office
What you record
File of reports and assessments with the AI Office
Who this is relevant to
When this applies
Provider of an AI system
A party that develops or has an AI system developed and places it on the market under its own name.
- 1Applies to providers of AI systems that fall under the competence of the AI Office pursuant to Article 75(1) and that are classified as high-risk. The replaced paragraph 1 carries two independent routes, and the four carve-outs at (i) to (iv) sit inside point (a) alone. Along point (a) Annex I systems fall outside the competence, as do point 2 of Annex III and point 8 as regards the administration of justice; point 8(b), on influencing elections and referenda, is not carved out. Point (b) is a route of its own: a system that constitutes, or is integrated into, a designated very large online platform or very large online search engine falls under the competence of the AI Office even where one of the carve-outs in point (a) applies. Anyone testing point (a) alone places such a system outside this obligation wrongly. Those duties start to apply when Chapter III, Sections 1 to 3, becomes applicable, and that date depends on the route: 2 December 2027 for the route of Article 6(2) and Annex III, and 2 August 2028 for the route of Article 6(1) and Annex I, which point (b) can bring into view. The deadline_at field carries the earlier of the two.
What the official source establishes
Paragraph 1a provides that, by way of derogation from Article 73, providers of high-risk AI systems subject to the competence of the AI Office pursuant to paragraph 1 of that Article shall report any serious incidents to the AI Office. Article 73(2) to (9) shall apply mutatis mutandis. The AI Office shall promptly transmit the relevant information to the market surveillance authority of the Member State in the territory of which the provider or its legal representative is situated. Paragraph 1e provides that the AI Office shall be responsible for conformity assessments and tests of AI systems referred to in paragraph 1 that are classified as high-risk and subject to a third-party conformity assessment pursuant to Article 43, before such systems are placed on the market or put into service. The Commission shall entrust the performance of those tests or assessments to notified bodies designated in accordance with this Regulation, in which case the notified body acts on behalf of the Commission, and the Commission may withdraw the delegation with immediate effect where a notified body does not perform those tasks adequately. The fees for testing and assessment activities shall be levied on the provider of a high-risk AI system who has applied for a third-party conformity assessment to the Commission, and that provider shall pay the costs directly to the notified body.
Our interpretation
The official source remains authoritative. This general interpretation is not legal advice.
This is not a clean change of counter. Paragraph 1a moves the address of the report and nothing more: Article 73(2) to (9) continues to apply mutatis mutandis, so the deadlines, the immediate initial report, the investigation and the duty to cooperate stay exactly as they are, and the AI Office transmits the relevant information to the market surveillance authority of your Member State in any event. Anyone who concludes from this that the Article 73 clock has stopped will miss the duty on the day things go wrong. Paragraph 1e is the heavier of the two and is most often overlooked, because it is not a reporting duty but a change of route in your market access: where your high-risk system falls under the competence of the Office and under a third-party conformity assessment, that assessment now runs through the Commission, a notified body carries it out on behalf of the Commission, and you carry the bill, paid directly to that body. Two things to do now: budget the cost in your planning rather than at the moment of application, and take into account that the Commission may withdraw a delegation with immediate effect, so your assessment can change hands while it is running.
What you can do now
Record per high-risk system whether it falls under the competence of the AI Office, and adjust your incident procedure accordingly: the same form, the same Article 73 deadlines, a different address. State explicitly in that procedure that the Office forwards the report to your national market surveillance authority, so that nobody assumes a second report is needed or that the national authority drops out of the picture. For systems that require a third-party conformity assessment, check whether that assessment will run through the Commission, budget the fees you pay directly to the notified body, and plan generous lead time, because an assessment before the system is placed on the market is a blocking step and not an administrative afterthought.
- 01
Route reporting and conformity assessment to the AI Office
Adjust your incident procedure so that a serious incident concerning a high-risk system under the competence of the AI Office reaches the Office, with the Article 73 deadlines intact, and establish whether your third-party conformity assessment now runs through the Commission, including the fees you pay directly to the notified body.
What to retain
File of reports and assessments with the AI Office
Per serious incident: when you established it, when and where you reported it, which system version it concerned and how you met the Article 73 deadlines. Per third-party conformity assessment: that the Office was responsible, which notified body acted on behalf of the Commission, which fees you paid directly and when the assessment was completed.
Control and reassessment
Intake and deadline tracking for a demand or an inspection
The control that ensures an information request, a notice of investigation or an announced inspection from the AI Office reaches an identifiable person, that it is first established whether it is a simple request or a decision, that the period set is tracked, and that what was supplied is recorded. The substance is sanctioned too: a periodic penalty payment can be imposed where you fail to give correct or complete answers during an ordered inspection, and incorrect, incomplete or misleading information supplied to the Office falls under the fines of Article 99(5). A retention order under Article 75a(6) belongs in this control, because it overrides your deletion routines.
Public tools
Full text of Article 75
The full legal text in the public AI Act Explorer. Note: the amended heading, the replaced paragraph 1, the inserted paragraphs 1a to 1e and 2a and the inserted Articles 75a to 75d appear in the amending regulation and not yet in a consolidated edition of the base regulation.
Conditions and exceptions
No separate exception is recorded in this first public version.
Official sources and locators
Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744
European Parliament and Council | official-journal-2026-07-24
Source locator: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (31), Article 75(1a) and (1e)
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(1a) and (1e): reporting to and assessment by the AI Office", praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-75-ai-office-high-risk-duties@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 83a34bbb496960e909b28ca4cdcd4338b787f6e6e306f03413d405f05029c671, https://www.praxikon.com/en/verplichtingen/article-75-ai-office-high-risk-duties (https://www.praxikon.com/api/v1/obligations?id=praxikon%3Aeu%3Aai-act%3Aobligation%3Aarticle-75-ai-office-high-risk-duties&effective_at=2026-08-08&known_at=2026-08-14&lang=en, accessed 2026-09-15)
Short form
praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-75-ai-office-high-risk-duties@1.0.0 (sha256 83a34bbb)
BibTeX
@misc{praxikon-eu-ai-act-obligation-article-75-ai-office-high-risk-duties-1-0-0,
author = {{Praxikon}},
title = {Article 75(1a) and (1e): reporting to and assessment by the AI Office},
year = {2026},
version = {1.0.0},
number = {praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-75-ai-office-high-risk-duties},
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 83a34bbb496960e909b28ca4cdcd4338b787f6e6e306f03413d405f05029c671},
url = {https://www.praxikon.com/en/verplichtingen/article-75-ai-office-high-risk-duties},
urldate = {2026-09-15},
language = {en}
}CSL JSON
[
{
"id": "praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-75-ai-office-high-risk-duties@1.0.0",
"type": "dataset",
"title": "Article 75(1a) and (1e): reporting to and assessment by the AI Office",
"container-title": "AI Act Change & Evidence Graph",
"publisher": "Praxikon",
"version": "1.0.0",
"number": "praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-75-ai-office-high-risk-duties",
"URL": "https://www.praxikon.com/en/verplichtingen/article-75-ai-office-high-risk-duties",
"language": "en",
"issued": {
"date-parts": [
[
2026,
8,
14
]
]
},
"accessed": {
"date-parts": [
[
2026,
9,
15
]
]
},
"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 83a34bbb496960e909b28ca4cdcd4338b787f6e6e306f03413d405f05029c671; retrieved_from https://www.praxikon.com/api/v1/obligations?id=praxikon%3Aeu%3Aai-act%3Aobligation%3Aarticle-75-ai-office-high-risk-duties&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
Version history
v1.0.0
8 August 2026
Article 75(1a) and (1e): reporting to and assessment by the AI Office
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.
Corrections to this obligation
No substantive correction to this object has been recorded.
Open the correction log
Help with implementation
Zahed Ashkara, jurist and freelance AI & Privacy Consultant, supports implementation with your team through Embed AI.
View AI governance at Embed AIFor AI agents and integrations
This page and the machine output derive from the same versioned object. Use the API for deterministic filters by role, topic and time.