Procedure file
Basic information
COD - Ordinary legislative procedure (ex-codecision
procedure)
Regulation

2021/0106(COD)

Procedure completed

Artificial Intelligence Act

Subject
3.30.06 Information and communication technologies, digital technologies
3.40.06 Electronics, electrotechnical industries, ICT, robotics
Legislative priorities
Joint Declaration 2023-24
Joint Declaration 2021
Joint Declaration 2022

Key players
European Parliament
Joint Committee Responsible
IMCO

RapporteurInternal Market and Consumer Protection

Appointed
01/12/2021
01/12/2021

Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
BENIFEI Brando

TUDORACHE Dragoş
Shadow rapporteur

CLUNE Deirdre

VOSS Axel

VITANOV Petar

HAHN Svenja

LAGODINSKY Sergey

VAN SPARRENTAKKim

ROOKEN Rob

ZŁOTOWSKI Kosma

LACAPELLE Jean-Lin

MADISON Jaak

ERNST Cornelia

KONEČNÁ Kateřina
LIBE

Internal Market and Consumer Protection

Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

Committee for opinion
ENVI

Rapporteur for opinion

Environment, Public Health and Food Safety

Appointed
15/09/2021SOLÍS PÉREZ Susana
ITRE Industry, Research and Energy(Associated committee)

11/01/2022

MAYDELL Eva
TRAN

Transport and Tourism

04/11/2021

CUTAJAR Josianne
CULT Culture and Education(Associated committee)

13/07/2021

KOLAJA Marcel
JURI Legal Affairs(Associated committee)

10/01/2022

VOSS Axel

Council of the European Union
Commission DG
European Commission

Commissioner

Communications Networks, Content and Technology BRETON Thierry

European Economic andSocial Committee

Key events
21/04/2021

Legislative proposal published

07/06/2021

Committee referral announced in
Parliament, 1st reading

16/12/2021

Referral to associated committees
announced in Parliament

16/12/2021

Referral to joint committee announced in
Parliament

11/05/2023

Vote in committee, 1st reading

22/05/2023

Committee report tabled for plenary, 1streading

13/06/2023

Debate in Parliament

14/06/2023

Decision by Parliament, 1st readingCOM(2021)0206

Summary

A9-0188/2023

Summary

T9-0236/2023

Summary14/06/2023

Matter referred back to the committee
responsible

13/02/2024

Approval in committee of the text agreed
at 1st reading interinstitutional
negotiations

12/03/2024

Debate in Parliament

13/03/2024

Results of vote in Parliament

13/03/2024

Decision by Parliament, 1st reading

21/05/2024

Act adopted by Council after Parliament's
1st reading

13/06/2024

Final act signed

12/07/2024

Final act published in Official Journal

PE758.862
GEDA/A/(2024)000753

Summary

T9-0138/2024

Technical information
Procedure reference

2021/0106(COD)

Procedure type

COD - Ordinary legislative procedure (ex-codecision procedure)

Procedure subtype

Legislation

Legislative instrument

Regulation

Legal basis

Treaty on the Functioning of the EU TFEU 114; Rules of Procedure EP 59;
Treaty on the Functioning of the EU TFEU 016-p2; Rules of Procedure EP
57_o

Mandatory consultation of other institutions

European Economic and Social Committee

Stage reached in procedure

Procedure completed

Committee dossier

CJ40/9/07994

Documentation gateway
Legislative proposal

COM(2021)0206

21/04/2021

EC

Document attached to the procedure

SEC(2021)0167

22/04/2021

EC

Document attached to the procedure

SWD(2021)0084

22/04/2021

EC

Document attached to the procedure

SWD(2021)0085

22/04/2021

EC

CON/2021/0040
OJ C 115 29.12.2021, p. 0005

29/12/2021

ECB

PE731.563

20/04/2022

EP

PE699.056

22/04/2022

EP

Amendments tabled in committee

PE732.802

10/06/2022

EP

Amendments tabled in committee

PE732.836

10/06/2022

EP

Amendments tabled in committee

PE732.837

10/06/2022

EP

Amendments tabled in committee

PE732.838

10/06/2022

EP

Amendments tabled in committee

PE732.839

10/06/2022

EP

Amendments tabled in committee

PE732.840

10/06/2022

EP

European Central Bank: opinion, guideline,
reportCommittee draft report
Committee opinion

ENVI

Summary

Amendments tabled in committee

PE732.841

10/06/2022

EP

Amendments tabled in committee

PE732.843

10/06/2022

EP

Amendments tabled in committee

PE732.844

10/06/2022

EP

Committee opinion

ITRE

PE719.801

14/06/2022

EP

Committee opinion

CULT

PE719.637

16/06/2022

EP

Committee opinion

TRAN

PE730.085

12/07/2022

EP

Committee opinion

JURI

PE719.827

12/09/2022

EP

Committee report tabled for plenary, 1streading/single reading

A9-0188/2023

22/05/2023

EP

Summary

Text adopted by Parliament, partial vote at
1st reading/single reading

T9-0236/2023

14/06/2023

EP

Summary

Coreper letter confirming interinstitutional
agreement

GEDA/A/(2024)000753

02/02/2024

CSL

Text agreed during interinstitutional
negotiations

PE758.862

02/02/2024

EP

Text adopted by Parliament, 1streading/single reading

T9-0138/2024

13/03/2024

EP

Draft final act

00024/2024/LEX

13/06/2024

CSL

SP(2024)350

22/07/2024

EC

Commission response to text adopted inplenary

Summary

Additional information
Research document

Briefing

17/11/2021

Final act
Regulation 2024/1689
OJ OJ L 12.07.2024 Summary

Artificial Intelligence Act
PURPOSE: to lay down a uniform legal framework in particular for the development, marketing and use of artificial intelligence in conformity
with EU values (Artificial Intelligence Act).
PROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council.
ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: the European Parliament decides in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and on an
equal footing with the Council.
BACKGROUND: faced with the rapid technological development of AI and a global policy context where more and more countries areinvesting heavily in AI, the EU must act as one to address challenges of AI. It is in the EU's interest to be a world leader in the development of
human-centred, sustainable, safe, ethical and trustworthy artificial intelligence.
Some Member States have already explored the adoption of national rules to ensure that artificial intelligence is safe and is developed andused in compliance with fundamental rights obligations. Differing national rules may lead to fragmentation of the internal market and decrease
legal certainty for operators that develop or use AI systems. A consistent and high level of protection throughout the EU should therefore be
ensured.
Following on from the White Paper on AI - "A European Approach to Excellence and Trust", the legislative proposal aims to ensure a high andconsistent level of protection across the EU.
The European Parliament resolution on a framework for ethical aspects of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies specifically
recommends that the Commission propose legislative measures to exploit the opportunities and benefits of AI, but also to ensure theprotection of ethical principles.

CONTENT: against this background, the Commission presents the proposed regulatory framework on Artificial Intelligence with the following
specific objectives:- ensure that AI systems placed on the Union market and used are safe and respect existing law on fundamental rights and Union values;- ensure legal certainty to facilitate investment and innovation in AI;- enhance governance and effective enforcement of existing law on fundamental rights and safety requirements applicable to AI systems;- facilitate the development of a single market for lawful, safe and trustworthy AI applications and prevent market fragmentation.
In order to achieve these objectives, the proposal lays down the following:
Harmonised risk-based approach
The proposal sets harmonised rules for the development, placement on the market and use of AI systems in the Union following a
proportionate risk-based approach. It proposes a single future-proof definition of AI.
The risk-based approach differentiates between uses of AI that create:
Unacceptable risk
AI systems considered a clear threat to the safety, livelihoods and rights of people will be banned. This includes AI systems or applications thatmanipulate human behaviour to circumvent users' free will (e.g. toys using voice assistance encouraging dangerous behaviour of minors) andsystems that allow social scoring' by governments.
Specific restrictions and safeguards are proposed in relation to certain uses of remote biometric identification systems for the purpose of law
enforcement.
High-risk
AI systems identified as high-risk include AI technology used in, inter alia:- critical infrastructures (e.g. transport), that could put the life and health of citizens at risk;- educational or vocational training, that may determine the access to education and professional course of someone's life (e.g. scoring of
exams);- safety components of products (e.g. AI application in robot-assisted surgery);- law enforcement that may interfere with people's fundamental rights (e.g. evaluation of the reliability of evidence);- migration, asylum and border control management (e.g. verification of authenticity of travel documents).
The proposal sets out the legal requirements for high-risk AI systems in relation to data and data governance, documentation and recording
keeping, transparency and provision of information to users, human oversight, robustness, accuracy and security.
Low-riskThis proposal allows the free use of applications such as AI-enabled video games or spam filters. The vast majority of AI systems fall into thiscategory. The draft Regulation does not intervene here, as these AI systems represent only minimal or no risk for citizens' rights or safety.
Governance
The Commission proposes that national competent market surveillance authorities supervise the new rules, while the creation of a European
Artificial Intelligence Board will facilitate their implementation, as well as drive the development of standards for AI. In addition, voluntary codesof conduct are proposed for non-high-risk AI, as well as regulatory sandboxes to facilitate responsible innovation.
Market monitoring and surveillance
The Commission will be in charge of monitoring the effects of the proposal. It will establish a system for registering stand-alone high-risk AI
applications in a public EU-wide database. This registration will also enable competent authorities, users and other interested people to verify if
the high-risk AI system complies with the requirements laid down in the proposal and to exercise enhanced oversight over those AI systems
posing high risks to fundamental rights.
Moreover, AI providers will be obliged to inform national competent authorities about serious incidents or malfunctioning that constitute a
breach of fundamental rights obligations as soon as they become aware of them, as well as any recalls or withdrawals of AI systems from themarket.
The Commission will publish a report evaluating and reviewing the proposed AI framework five years following the date on which it becomesapplicable.
Budgetary implications
Member States will have to designate supervisory authorities in charge of implementing the legislative requirements. Their supervisory function
could build on existing arrangements, for example regarding conformity assessment bodies or market surveillance, but would require sufficienttechnological expertise and human and financial resources.

Artificial Intelligence Act
The Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs adopted thejoint report by Brando BENIFEI (S&D, IT) and Drago? TUDORACHE (Renew, RO) on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliamentand of the Council on laying down harmonised rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and amending certain Union LegislativeActs.

Given the major impact that artificial intelligence can have on society and the need to build trust, it is vital for artificial intelligence and its
regulatory framework to be developed according to Union values enshrined in Article 2 TEU, the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in
the Treaties, the Charter, and international human rights law.
PurposeThe purpose of the proposed regulation is to promote the uptake of human centric and trustworthy artificial intelligence and to ensure a highlevel of protection of health, safety, fundamental rights, democracy and rule of law and the environment from harmful effects of artificial
intelligence systems in the Union. It lays down a uniform legal framework in particular for the development, the placing on the market, theputting into service and the use of artificial intelligence in conformity with Union values and ensures the free movement of AI-based goods andservices cross-border, thus preventing Member States from imposing restrictions on the development, marketing and use of Artificial
Intelligence systems (AI) systems, unless explicitly authorised by this Regulation. Certain AI systems can also have an impact on democracy
and rule of law and the environment. These concerns are specifically addressed in the critical sectors and use cases listed in the annexes tothis Regulation.
The amended text stipulates that the regulation should preserve the values of the Union facilitating the distribution of artificial intelligencebenefits across society, protecting individuals, companies, democracy and rule of law and the environment from risks while boosting innovationand employment and making the Union a leader in the field.
General principles applicable to all AI systems
All operators covered by the Regulation should make every effort to develop and use AI or general purpose AI systems in accordance with thefollowing general principles: (i) human agency and oversight; (ii) technical robustness and safety; (iii) privacy and data governance; (iv)transparency; (v) diversity, non-discrimination and fairness; and (vi) social and environmental well-being.
Scope
To support research and innovation, the regulation should not undermine research and development activity and respect freedom of scientificresearch. It is therefore necessary to exclude from its scope AI systems specifically developed for the sole purpose of scientific research anddevelopment and to ensure that the regulation does not otherwise affect scientific research and development activity on AI systems.
Members also added exemptions for research activities and AI components provided under open-source licenses. The new law promotes
regulatory sandboxes, or controlled environments, established by public authorities to test AI before its deployment.
AI literacy
Members stressed that when implementing the proposed regulation, the Union and the Member States should promote measures for thedevelopment of a sufficient level of AI literacy, across sectors and taking into account the different needs of groups of providers, deployers andaffected persons concerned, including through education and training, skilling and reskilling programmes and while ensuring proper genderand age balance, in view of allowing a democratic control of AI systems.
High-risk AI
Members expanded the classification of high-risk areas to include harm to peoples health, safety, fundamental rights or the environment. They
also added AI systems to influence voters in political campaigns and in recommender systems used by social media platforms (with more than
45 million users under the Digital Services Act) to the high-risk list.
Members also added the following bans such as:- real-time remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces;- post remote biometric identification systems, with the only exception of law enforcement for the prosecution of serious crimes and only after
judicial authorisation;- biometric categorisation systems using sensitive characteristics (e.g. gender, race, ethnicity, citizenship status, religion, political orientation);- predictive policing systems (based on profiling, location or past criminal behaviour);- emotion recognition systems in law enforcement, border management, workplace, and educational institutions; and- indiscriminate scraping of biometric data from social media or CCTV footage to create facial recognition databases (violating human rights
and right to privacy).
The European Artificial Intelligence Office
The proposal establishes the European Artificial Intelligence Office which should be an independent body of the Union. It is proposed that its
seat be in Brussels.
It should carry out, inter alia, the following tasks:- support, advise, and cooperate with Member States, national supervisory authorities, the Commission and other Union institutions, bodies,
offices and agencies with regard to the implementation of this Regulation;- promote public awareness and understanding of the benefits, risks, safeguards and rights and obligations in relation to the use of AI systems;- facilitate the development of common criteria and a shared understanding among market operators and competent authorities of the relevant
concepts provided for in this Regulation;- provide monitoring of foundation models and to organise a regular dialogue with the developers of foundation models with regard to theircompliance as well as AI systems that make use of such AI models.
The AI Office should be accountable to the European Parliament and to the Council; act independently and ensure a high level oftransparency.
EU database for high-risk AI systems

The amended text stressed that the Commission should, in collaboration with the Member States, set up and maintain a public EU database
containing information concerning high-risk AI systems. Information contained in the EU database should be freely available to the public.

Artificial Intelligence Act
The European Parliament adopted, by 499 votes to 28 with 93 abstentions, amendments to the proposal for a Regulation of the European
Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (artificial intelligence act) and amending certain Union
legislative acts.
The matter was referred back to the committee responsible for inter-institutional negotiations.
Purpose
The regulation lays down a uniform legal framework in particular for the development, the placing on the market, the putting into service andthe use of artificial intelligence in conformity with Union values. Its aim is to promote the uptake of human centric and trustworthy artificial
intelligence and to ensure a high level of protection of health, safety, fundamental rights, democracy and rule of law and the environment fromharmful effects of artificial intelligence systems in the Union.
Supporting innovation
To boost AI innovation and support SMEs, Members added exemptions for research activities and AI components provided under open-source
licenses. The new law promotes so-called regulatory sandboxes, or real-life environments, established by public authorities to test AI before it
is deployed.
General principles applicable to all AI systems
All operators covered by the Regulation should make every effort to develop and use AI or general purpose AI systems in accordance with thefollowing general principles: (i) human agency and oversight; (ii) technical robustness and safety; (iii) privacy and data governance; (iv)transparency; (v) diversity, non-discrimination and fairness; and (vi) social and environmental well-being.
AI literacy
When implementing the regulation, the Union and the Member States should promote measures for the development of a sufficient level of AI
literacy, across sectors and taking into account the different needs of groups of providers, deployers and affected persons concerned,
including through education and training, skilling and reskilling programmes and while ensuring proper gender and age balance, in view ofallowing a democratic control of AI systems.
Prohibition of AI practices
AI systems posing an unacceptable level of risk to personal safety will be prohibited. Members expanded the list to include bans on intrusiveand discriminatory uses of AI, such as:- systems that use subliminal techniques or deliberately manipulative or deceptive techniques, with the aim of substantially distorting a persons
or a group of persons behaviour by appreciably impairing the persons ability to make an informed decision, thereby causing the person to takea decision that that person would not have otherwise taken in a manner that causes or is likely to cause that person, another person or groupof persons significant harm;- systems which exploit the possible vulnerabilities of a given person or group of persons, in particular known or predictable personality traits
or the social or economic situation, age, physical or mental capacity of that person or group of persons, with the aim or effect of substantiallyaltering that person's behaviour;- placing on the market, putting into service or use of biometric categorisation systems that categorise natural persons according to sensitive or
protected attributes (e.g. gender, race, ethnic origin, citizenship status, religion, political orientation), or characteristics or based on theinference of those attributes or characteristics;- systems used for social rating (classifying people according to their social behaviour or personality characteristics);- the use of real-time remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible areas;- predictive policing systems (based on profiling, location or past criminal behaviour);- emotion recognition systems in law enforcement, border management, the workplace, and educational institutions; and- untargeted scraping of facial images from the internet or CCTV footage to create facial recognition databases (violating human rights andright to privacy).
- emotion recognition systems used in law enforcement, border management, the workplace and educational establishments;- post remote biometric identification systems, with the only exception of law enforcement for the prosecution of serious crimes and only after
judicial authorisation.
The following have been added to the list of high-risk systems:- systems intended to be used as security components in the management and operation of the supply of water, gas, heating, electricity andcritical digital infrastructures;- systems intended to be used to assess the appropriate level of education of an individual and which substantially influence the level of
education and vocational training from which that individual will benefit or to which he or she will have access;- systems intended to be used to monitor and detect prohibited behaviour in students during tests in the context of, or within, education andtraining institutions;- systems intended to be used to make or substantially influence decisions on the eligibility of natural persons for health and life insurance;- systems intended to evaluate and classify emergency calls from individuals;- AI systems intended to be used by public authorities in the management of migration, asylum and border controls to process, control andverify data for the purpose of detecting, recognising and identifying natural persons;- systems intended to be used to influence the outcome of an election or referendum or the voting behaviour of individuals in the exercise of
their vote in elections or referendums;- AI systems used in recommender systems operated by major social media platforms.
Obligations for general purpose AI
Generative AI systems based on such models, like ChatGPT, would have to comply with transparency requirements (disclosing that thecontent was AI-generated, also helping distinguish so-called deep-fake images from real ones) and ensure safeguards against generatingillegal content. Detailed summaries of the copyrighted data used for their training would also have to be made publicly available.
AI OfficeThe proposal establishes the AI Office, which should be an independent body of the Union. It is proposed that it should be based in Brussels.
Its tasks should include the following:- support, advise and cooperate with Member States, national supervisory authorities, the Commission and other Union institutions, bodies,
offices or agencies on the implementation of this Regulation;- monitor and ensure the effective and consistent application of the Regulation;- contribute to the coordination between the national supervisory authorities responsible for the application of the Regulation;- mediate in discussions on serious disagreements which may arise between competent authorities concerning the application of theRegulation;- coordinate joint investigations.
The IA office should be accountable to the European Parliament and the Council, act independently and ensure a high level of transparency.
Right to lodge a complaint with a national supervisory authority
Every natural persons or groups of natural persons will have the right to lodge a complaint with a national supervisory authority if they consider
that the AI system relating to him or her infringes this Regulation. Lastly, Members want to boost citizens right to file complaints about AI
systems and receive explanations of decisions based on high-risk AI systems that significantly impact their fundamental rights andsocio-economic well-being.

Artificial Intelligence Act
The European Parliament adopted by 523 votes to 46, with 49 abstentions, a legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation of theEuropean Parliament and of the Council on laying down harmonised rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and amending
certain Union Legislative Acts.
The European Parliament's position adopted at first reading under the ordinary legislative procedure amends the proposal as follows:
Subject matter
The purpose of this Regulation is to improve the functioning of the internal market and promote the uptake of human-centric and trustworthy
artificial intelligence (AI), while ensuring a high level of protection of health, safety, fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental
Rights, including democracy, the rule of law and environmental protection, against the harmful effects of artificial intelligence systems (AIsystems) in the Union, and to support innovation.
This Regulation does not apply to AI systems or AI models, including their output, specifically developed and put into service for the sole
purpose of scientific research and development.
Regulatory sandboxes and real-world testing will have to be established at the national level, and made accessible to SMEs and start-ups, todevelop and train innovative AI before its placement on the market.
This Regulation applies to AI systems released under free and open source licences, unless they are placed on the market or put into service
as high-risk AI systems.
AI literacy
Providers and deployers of AI systems shall take measures to ensure, to their best extent, a sufficient level of AI literacy of their staff and otherpersons dealing with the operation and use of AI systems on their behalf, taking into account their technical knowledge, experience, educationand training and the context the AI systems are to be used in, and considering the persons or groups of persons on whom the AI systems areto be used.
Prohibited AI Practices
The new rules prohibit the following AI practices:- AI system that deploys subliminal techniques beyond a persons consciousness or purposefully manipulative or deceptive techniques, withthe objective, or the effect of, materially distorting the behaviour of a person or a group of persons by appreciably impairing their ability tomake an informed decision, thereby causing a person to take a decision that that person would not have otherwise taken;

- AI system that exploits any of the vulnerabilities of a person or a specific group of persons due to their age, disability or a specific social or
economic situation, with the objective, or the effect, of materially distorting the behaviour of that person;- AI systems with social scores (classification of natural persons based on their social behaviour or known, inferred or predicted personal or
personality characteristics);- AI system for making risk assessments of natural persons in order to assess or predict the likelihood of a natural person committing acriminal offence, based solely on the profiling of a natural person or on assessing their personality traits and characteristics;- AI systems that create or expand facial recognition databases through the untargeted scraping of facial images from the internet or CCTV
footage;- AI systems to infer emotions of a natural person in the areas of workplace and education institutions, except where the use of the AI system
is intended to be put in place or into the market for medical or safety reasons;- biometric categorisation systems that categorise individually natural persons based on their biometric data to deduce or infer their race,
political opinions, trade union membership, religious or philosophical beliefs, sex life or sexual orientation;- real-time remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for the purposes of law enforcement , unless and in so far as
such use is strictly necessary for one of the following objectives: (i) the targeted search for specific victims of abduction, trafficking in humanbeings or sexual exploitation of human beings, as well as searching for missing persons; (ii) the prevention of a genuine threat of a terrorist
attack; (iii) the identification of a person suspected of having committed a criminal offence, for the purpose of conducting a criminal
investigation, prosecution or executing a criminal penalty for offences punishable by a custodial sentence of a maximum duration of at least
four years.
The use of the real-time remote biometric identification system in publicly accessible spaces should be authorised only if the relevant law
enforcement authority has completed a fundamental rights impact assessment. In addition, their use remains limited to what is strictly
necessary concerning the period of time as well as the geographic and personal scope. In any case, no decision producing an adverse legal
effect on a person should be taken based solely on the output of the remote biometric identification system.
Obligations for high-risk systems
The Regulation lays down clear obligations are also foreseen for other high-risk AI systems (due to their significant potential harm to health,safety, fundamental rights, environment, democracy and the rule of law).
The following have been added to the list of high-risk systems, in particular, systems intended to be used:- as safety components in the management and operation of critical digital infrastructure, road traffic and the supply of water, gas, heating andelectricity;- to determine the access, admission or assignment of individuals to educational and vocational training establishments, at all levels;- for the recruitment or selection of natural persons, in particular for publishing targeted job offers, analysing and filtering applications andevaluating candidates;- to assess the eligibility of individuals for essential social security benefits and services, including healthcare services;- for risk assessment and pricing of life and health insurance for individuals;- in the context of migration, asylum and border control management, for the purposes of detecting, recognising or identifying natural persons;- to influence the outcome of an election or referendum or the electoral behaviour of natural persons in the exercise of their vote.
Such systems must assess and reduce risks, maintain use logs, be transparent and accurate, and ensure human oversight. Citizens will havea right to submit complaints about AI systems and receive explanations about decisions based on high-risk AI systems that affect their rights.
General-purpose AI (GPAI)
General-purpose AI systems, and the GPAI models such as ChatGPT they are based on, must meet certain transparency requirements
including compliance with EU copyright law and publishing detailed summaries of the content used for training. The more powerful GPAI
models that could pose systemic risks will face additional requirements, including performing model evaluations, assessing and mitigating
systemic risks, and reporting on incidents.
Additionally, artificial or manipulated images, audio or video content (deepfakes) need to be clearly labelled as such.

Artificial Intelligence Act
PURPOSE: to improve the functioning of the internal market and promote the uptake of human-centric and trustworthy artificial intelligence(AI), while ensuring a high level of protection of health, safety, fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, including
democracy, the rule of law and environmental protection, against the harmful effects of artificial intelligence systems (AI systems) in the Union,
and to support innovation.
LEGISLATIVE ACT: Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised rules on artificial
intelligence and amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No 167/2013, (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1139 and (EU)2019/2144 and Directives 2014/90/EU, (EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Artificial Intelligence Act).
CONTENT: the regulation on AI aims to foster the development and uptake of safe and trustworthy AI systems across the EUs single market
by both private and public actors. At the same time, it aims to ensure respect of fundamental rights of EU citizens and stimulate investment
and innovation on artificial intelligence in Europe. The AI act applies only to areas within EU law and provides exemptions such as for systems
used exclusively for military and defence as well as for research purposes.
Prohibited AI Practices

The legislation follows a risk-based approach, which means the higher the risk to cause harm to society, the stricter the rules. The new law
categorises different types of artificial intelligence according to risk. AI systems presenting only limited risk would be subject to very lighttransparency obligations, while high-risk AI systems would be authorised, but subject to a set of requirements and obligations to gain accessto the EU market.
The new rules prohibit the following AI practices:- AI system that deploys subliminal techniques beyond a persons consciousness or purposefully manipulative or deceptive techniques;- AI system that exploits any of the vulnerabilities of a person or a specific group of persons due to their age, disability or a specific social or
economic situation;- AI systems with social scores;- AI system for making risk assessments of natural persons in order to assess or predict the likelihood of a natural person committing acriminal offence, based solely on the profiling of a natural person or on assessing their personality traits and characteristics;- AI systems that create or expand facial recognition databases through the untargeted scraping of facial images from the internet or CCTV
footage;- real-time remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for the purposes of law enforcement , unless and in so far as
such use is strictly necessary for one of the following objectives: (i) the targeted search for specific victims of abduction, trafficking in humanbeings or sexual exploitation of human beings, as well as searching for missing persons; (ii) the prevention of a genuine threat of a terrorist
attack; (iii) the identification of a person suspected of having committed a criminal offence, for the purpose of conducting a criminal
investigation, prosecution or executing a criminal penalty for offences punishable by a custodial sentence of a maximum duration of at least
four years.
The following have been added to the list of high-risk systems, in particular, systems intended to be used:- as safety components in the management and operation of critical digital infrastructure, road traffic and the supply of water, gas, heating andelectricity;- to determine the access, admission or assignment of individuals to educational and vocational training establishments, at all levels;- for the recruitment or selection of natural persons, in particular for publishing targeted job offers, analysing and filtering applications andevaluating candidates;- to assess the eligibility of individuals for essential social security benefits and services, including healthcare services;- for risk assessment and pricing of life and health insurance for individuals;- to influence the outcome of an election or referendum or the electoral behaviour of natural persons in the exercise of their vote.
Transparency and protection of fundamental rights
Before a high-risk AI system is deployed by some entities providing public services, the fundamental rights impact will need to be assessed.
High-risk AI systems, as well as certain users of a high-risk AI system that are public entities will need to be registered in the EU database forhigh-risk AI systems, and users of an emotion recognition system will have to inform natural persons when they are being exposed to such asystem.
General-purpose AI (GPAI)
General-purpose AI systems, and the GPAI models such as ChatGPT they are based on, must meet certain transparency requirements
including compliance with EU copyright law and publishing detailed summaries of the content used for training. The more powerful GPAI
models that could pose systemic risks will face additional requirements, including performing model evaluations, assessing and mitigating
systemic risks, and reporting on incidents.
Additionally, artificial or manipulated images, audio or video content (deepfakes) need to be clearly labelled as such.
Measures in support of innovation
The new legislation foresees that AI regulatory sandboxes, enabling a controlled environment for the development, testing and validation of
innovative AI systems, should also allow for testing of innovative AI systems in real world conditions.
GovernanceTo ensure proper enforcement, several governing bodies are set up: (i) an AI Office within the Commission to enforce the common rules
across the EU; (ii) a scientific panel of independent experts to support the enforcement activities; (iii) an AI Board with Member States
representatives to advise and assist the Commission and Member States on consistent and effective application of the AI Act; (iv) an advisory
forum for stakeholders to provide technical expertise to the AI Board and the Commission.
Penalties
The fines for infringements to the AI act are set as a percentage of the offending companys global annual turnover in the previous financial
year or a predetermined amount, whichever is higher. SMEs and start-ups are subject to proportional administrative fines.
ENTRY INTO FORCE : 1.8.2024.
APPLICATION: from 2.8.2026.

Transparency
MAYDELL
Eva

Rapporteur

IMCO

09/04/2024

BSA | The Software
Alliance

BENIFEI
BrandoRapporteur

IMCO

20/03/2024

Bain Consultants

BENIFEI
BrandoRapporteur

IMCO

20/03/2024

Onfido

BENIFEI
BrandoRapporteur

IMCO

13/03/2024

ALLAI Netherlands

BENIFEI
BrandoRapporteur

IMCO

13/03/2024

Future of Life
Institute

MAYDELL
Eva

Rapporteur

IMCO

07/03/2024

Giesecke+DevrientGmbH

TUDORACHE
Drago?

Rapporteur

LIBE

06/03/2024

Mexico Special
Envoy for Emerging
Technologies

TUDORACHE
Drago?

Rapporteur

LIBE

05/03/2024

Alibaba

TUDORACHE
Drago?

Rapporteur

LIBE

05/03/2024

Friedrich Naumann
Foundation

MAYDELL
Eva

Rapporteur

IMCO

05/03/2024

OpenAI OpCo, LLCREPASI René

Member

15/03/2024

JEF Karlsruhe
AStA KITKOKALARI
Arba

Member

06/03/2024

AI SwedenGARCÍA DEL
BLANCO Ibán

Member

20/02/2024

Confederación Sindical deComisiones ObrerasGARCÍA DEL
BLANCO Ibán

Member

15/02/2024

European Studies and Human
Rights (Pontifical University of
Salamanca, Spain)

DIDIER
Geoffroy

Member

06/02/2024

IFPI Representing recording
industry worldwideGARCÍA DEL
BLANCO Ibán

Member13/12/2023

DG FORTA TV

GARCÍA DEL
BLANCO Ibán

Member

08/12/2023

German Marshall FundWÖLKEN
Tiemo

Member

28/11/2023

Bundesverband Musikindustriee.V.

GUSMÃO
José

Member

28/11/2023

Audiogest - Associação para aGestão e Distribuição de Direitos
Associação Fonográfica
Portuguesa

FERBER
MarkusMember

28/11/2023

Bundesverband Musikindustriee.V. (BVMI)