Applicablev1.0.0

Article 86: right to an explanation of a decision

A person affected by a decision that a deployer takes on the basis of the output of a high-risk AI system listed in Annex III may request an explanation of the role of that system in the decision-making procedure and of the main elements of the decision taken.

Preliminary reading

Two things are unsettled here. First, how deep the explanation has to go: the Regulation asks for clear and meaningful explanations of the role of the system and the main elements of the decision taken, but there is no case law and no guidance saying whether a description of the factors used is enough or whether it concerns the weighting in the individual case. We read it as the latter, because the text speaks of the decision taken rather than of the system in general. Second, from when the right bites in practice: Article 86 falls under the general application date of 2 August 2026, while the obligations for the Annex III systems it hangs on were shifted to 2 December 2027 by the Digital Omnibus. We therefore read the right as applying from 2 August 2026 to systems already in use at that point, and not as having moved along automatically. A defensible alternative reading is that the right only acquires meaning once the corresponding obligations apply.

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.

Praxikon tracks Article 86: right to an explanation of a decision under the EU AI Act, checked against the official source on 14 August 2026, citing the source for every statement.

Status: Applicable
Application date: 2 August 2026
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

Applicable · 2 August 2026

For whom

Deployer

What you do

Set up how you handle a request for an explanation

What you record

Official source

Article 86(1)-(3)

Who this is relevant to

When this applies

Deployer
An organisation using an AI system under its authority, excluding personal non-professional use.

1Applies where a deployer takes a decision about a natural person on the basis of the output of a high-risk AI system listed in Annex III, with the exception of point 2 of that Annex, and that decision produces legal effects or similarly significantly affects that person in a way they consider to have an adverse impact on their health, safety or fundamental rights.

What the official source establishes

Paragraph 1 gives any affected person subject to a decision taken by the deployer on the basis of the output of a high-risk AI system listed in Annex III, with the exception of point 2 of that Annex, and which produces legal effects or similarly significantly affects that person in a way that they consider to have an adverse impact on their health, safety or fundamental rights, the right to obtain from the deployer clear and meaningful explanations of the role of the AI system in the decision-making procedure and of the main elements of the decision taken. Paragraph 2 provides that paragraph 1 does not apply to the use of AI systems for which exceptions from, or restrictions to, that obligation follow from Union or national law in compliance with Union law. Paragraph 3 provides that this Article applies only to the extent that the right referred to in paragraph 1 is not otherwise provided for under Union law.

Our interpretation

The official source remains authoritative. This general interpretation is not legal advice.

This right reaches you through a different channel than the rest of the Regulation. A regulator writes to you; a candidate or a citizen calls or emails, usually at your existing complaints or objections desk. That desk does not know today that an AI system was in the process, let alone what role it played, and that is where it goes wrong. Two things therefore matter more than the legal depth of the explanation itself: that your front line recognises such a request, and that it can be traced per decision which system in which version contributed to it. Without the second you can explain how your system works in general but not what happened in this case, and the latter is what is being asked. Note also the relationship with Article 22 GDPR: where that article already grants a right, Article 86 steps back, but the scope differs enough that you cannot settle the question in the abstract.

What you can do now

Record, per Annex III system that contributes to decisions about people, which decision was supported by which system version, and make sure your complaints or objections desk recognises a request for an explanation and routes it to someone who can answer it. Also determine per process whether Article 22 GDPR already grants a right, because Article 86 then steps back.

01
Set up how you handle a request for an explanation
Ensure your complaints or objections desk recognises a request for an explanation of an AI-supported decision, that it can be traced per decision which system in which version contributed to it, and that someone is designated to give the explanation.

What to retain

Register of requests for an explanation

Per request: who made it, about which decision, which system and which version contributed to it, what explanation was given and when. This is also the file that shows you did not silently ignore the right.

Control and reassessment

Routing and deadline tracking of a request for an explanation
The control that ensures an incoming request reaches an identifiable person within a set period and is answered, instead of sitting in a general inbox.

Public tools

Full text of Article 86
The full legal text in the public AI Act Explorer.

Conditions and exceptions

Paragraph 2 excludes the right for AI systems where exceptions from, or restrictions to, that obligation follow from Union or national law in compliance with Union law. Paragraph 3 further limits the right to cases where it is not otherwise provided for under Union law, which makes the boundary with Article 22 GDPR a case-by-case question.

Official sources and locators

EU Artificial Intelligence Act 2024/1689
European Parliament and Council | original-oj-2024-07-12
Source locator: Article 86(1)-(3)
Open official source

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 86: right to an explanation of a decision",
praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-86-right-to-explanation@1.0.0,
dataset praxikon:sys:registry:dataset:ai-act-implementation-graph 2.1.0 (schema 1.4.0),
effective_at 2026-08-02T00:00:00.000Z, known_at 2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z,
sha256 fdff4b46310b77efe7995b1f93427a199d0ce4ca2d3d59ce4cb9db0cc640944c,
https://www.praxikon.com/en/verplichtingen/article-86-right-to-explanation
(https://www.praxikon.com/api/v1/obligations?id=praxikon%3Aeu%3Aai-act%3Aobligation%3Aarticle-86-right-to-explanation&effective_at=2026-08-02&known_at=2026-08-14&lang=en, accessed 2026-08-21)

Short form

praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-86-right-to-explanation@1.0.0 (sha256 fdff4b46)

BibTeX

@misc{praxikon-eu-ai-act-obligation-article-86-right-to-explanation-1-0-0,
  author       = {{Praxikon}},
  title        = {Article 86: right to an explanation of a decision},
  year         = {2026},
  version      = {1.0.0},
  number       = {praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-86-right-to-explanation},
  howpublished = {AI Act Change \& Evidence Graph, dataset 2.1.0, schema 1.4.0},
  note         = {effective_at 2026-08-02T00:00:00.000Z; known_at 2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z; sha256 fdff4b46310b77efe7995b1f93427a199d0ce4ca2d3d59ce4cb9db0cc640944c},
  url          = {https://www.praxikon.com/en/verplichtingen/article-86-right-to-explanation},
  urldate      = {2026-08-21},
  language     = {en}
}

CSL JSON

[
  {
    "id": "praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-86-right-to-explanation@1.0.0",
    "type": "dataset",
    "title": "Article 86: right to an explanation of a decision",
    "container-title": "AI Act Change & Evidence Graph",
    "publisher": "Praxikon",
    "version": "1.0.0",
    "number": "praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-86-right-to-explanation",
    "URL": "https://www.praxikon.com/en/verplichtingen/article-86-right-to-explanation",
    "language": "en",
    "issued": {
      "date-parts": [
        [
          2026,
          8,
          14
        ]
      ]
    },
    "accessed": {
      "date-parts": [
        [
          2026,
          8,
          21
        ]
      ]
    },
    "note": "dataset praxikon:sys:registry:dataset:ai-act-implementation-graph 2.1.0; schema 1.4.0; effective_at 2026-08-02T00:00:00.000Z; known_at 2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z; sha256 fdff4b46310b77efe7995b1f93427a199d0ce4ca2d3d59ce4cb9db0cc640944c; retrieved_from https://www.praxikon.com/api/v1/obligations?id=praxikon%3Aeu%3Aai-act%3Aobligation%3Aarticle-86-right-to-explanation&effective_at=2026-08-02&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
2 August 2026
Article 86: right to an explanation of a decision
A person affected by a decision that a deployer takes on the basis of the output of a high-risk AI system listed in Annex III may request an explanation of the role of that system in the decision-making procedure and of the main elements of the decision taken.

Corrections to this obligation

No substantive correction to this object has been recorded.

Open the correction log

Expert behind this page

Zahed Ashkara

Lawyer and AI governance specialist

View profile LinkedIn

Execution

From obligation to arranged and demonstrable

Knowing where you stand is step one. Embed AI translates this obligation into a concrete approach for your organisation: scope, ownership, register and evidence.

See the Embed AI approach

For 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.

Open as JSON Open as JSON-LD Open this object in the explorer Read the methodology