### 14. believes that an ai-system presents a high risk when its autonomous operation involves a significant potential to cause harm to one or more persons , in a manner that is random and impossible to predict in advance; considers that the significance of the potential depends on the interplay between the severity of possible harm , the likelihood that the risk materializes and the manner in which the ai-system is being used; ### 14. believes that an ai-system presents a high risk when its autonomous operation involves a significant potential to cause harm to one or more persons , in a manner that is based on an autonomous decision-making of the technology and thus impossible to predict in advance; considers that the significance of the potential depends on the interplay between the severity of possible harm , the likelihood that the risk materializes and the manner in which the ai-system is being used;


### 16. believes that in line with strict liability systems of the member states , the proposed regulation should only cover harm to the important legally protected rights such as life , health , physical integrity and property , and should set out the amounts and extent of compensation as well as the limitation period; ### 16. believes that in line with strict liability systems of the member states , the proposed regulation should only cover harm to the important legally protected rights such as life , health , physical integrity and property , and should set out the extent of compensation as well as the limitation period;


### 17. determines that all activities , devices or processes driven by ai-systems that cause harm or damage but are not listed in the annex to the proposed regulation should remain subject to fault-based liability; believes that the affected person should nevertheless benefit from a presumption of fault of the deployer; ### 17. determines that the criteria defining the level of risk of harm or damage caused by ai-systems but not listed in the annex to the proposed regulation should remain subject to fault-based liability; believes that the affected person should nevertheless benefit from a presumption of fault of the operator , who can exculpate itself by proof of abiding by duty of care;


### 19. is of the opinion that , based on the significant potential to cause harm and by taking directive 2009/103/ec7 into account , all deployers of high-risk ai-systems listed in the annex to the proposed regulation should hold liability insurance; considers that such a mandatory insurance regime for high-risk ai-systems should cover the amounts and the extent of compensation laid down by the proposed regulation; ### 19. is of the opinion that , based on the significant potential to cause harm and by taking directive 2009/103/ec7 into account , all operators of high-risk ai-systems listed in the annex to the proposed regulation should hold liability insurance; considers that such a mandatory insurance regime for high-risk ai-systems should cover the amounts and the extent of compensation laid down by the proposed regulation; is mindful of the fact that such technology is currently still very rare , since it presupposes a high degree of autonomous decision making and that , thus , the current proposals are mostly future oriented;


### 20. believes that a european compensation mechanism , funded with public money , is not the right way to fill potential insurance gaps; considers that bearing the good experience with regulatory sandboxes in the fintech sector in mind , it should be up to the insurance market to adjust existing products or create new insurance cover for the numerous sectors and various different technologies , products and services that involve ai-systems; ### 20. believes that a european compensation mechanism , funded with public money , is not the right way to fill potential insurance gaps; considers that , notwithstanding the aforementioned mechanism between the commission and the insurance branch , bearing the good experience with regulatory sandboxes in the fintech sector in mind , it should be up to the insurance market to adjust existing products or create new insurance cover for the numerous sectors and various different technologies , products and services that involve ai-systems;


### this report is addressing an important aspect of digitisation , which itself is shaped by cross-border activities and global competition. the following principles should serve as guidance: ### this report is addressing an important aspect of digitisation , which itself is shaped by cross-border activities , global competition and core societal considerations. the following principles should serve as guidance:


### - a genuine digital single market requires full harmonisation by a regulation. ### - a genuine digital single market requires a level of full harmonisation with the objective of not lowering the legal protection of citizens throughout the union.


### - new legal challenges posed by the deployment of artificial intelligence (ai)-systems have to be addressed by establishing maximal legal certainty for the producer , the deployer , the affected person and any other third party. ### - new legal challenges posed by the development of artificial intelligence (ai)-systems have to be addressed by establishing maximal legal certainty throughout the liability chain , including the producer , the operator , the affected person and any other third party.


### - there should be no over-regulation as this would hamper european innovation in ai , especially if the technology , product or service is developed by smes or start-ups. ### - there should be no over-regulation nor legal uncertainty as this would hamper european innovation in ai , especially if the technology , product or service is developed by smes or start-ups.


### - this report and the product liability directive are two pillars of a common liability framework for ai-systems and require close coordination between all political actors. ### - this report and the product liability directive are two pillars of a common liability framework for ai-systems and require close coordination between all political actors , at union and national levels.


### - citizens need to be entitled to the same level of protection and rights , no matter if the harm is caused by an ai-system or not , or if it takes place physically or virtually. ### - citizens need to be entitled to the same level of protection and rights , no matter if the harm is caused by an ai-system or not , or if it takes place physically , materially , immaterially or virtually.


### (1) the concept of ‘liability’ plays an important double role in our daily life: on the one hand , it ensures that a person who has suffered harm or damage is entitled to claim compensation from the party proven to be liable for that harm or damage , and on the other hand , it provides the economic incentives for persons to avoid causing harm or damage in the first place. any liability framework should strive to strike a balance between efficiently protecting potential victims of damage and at the same time , providing enough leeway to make the development of new technologies , products or services possible. ### (1) the concept of ‘liability’ plays an important double role in our daily life: on the one hand , it ensures that a person who has suffered harm or damage is entitled to claim and get compensation from the party held liable for that harm or damage , and on the other hand , it provides the economic incentives for persons to avoid causing harm or damage in the first place. any liability framework should strive to strike a balance between efficiently protecting potential victims of damage and at the same time , providing enough leeway to make the development of new technologies , products or services possible.


### (2) especially at the beginning of the life cycle of new products and services , there is a certain degree of risk for the user as well as for third persons that something does not function properly. this process of trial-and-error is at the same time a key enabler of technical progress without which most of our technologies would not exist. so far , the accompanying risks of new products and services have been properly mitigated by strong product safety legislation and liability rules. ### (2) especially at the beginning of the life cycle of new products and services , after those were pre-tested , there is a certain degree of risk for the user as well as for third persons that something does not function properly. this process of trial-and-error is at the same time a key enabler of technical progress without which most of our technologies would not exist. so far , the accompanying risks of new products and services have been properly mitigated by strong product safety legislation and liability rules.


### (3) the rise of artificial intelligence (ai) however presents a significant challenge for the existing liability frameworks. using ai-systems in our daily life will lead to situations in which their opacity (“black box” element) makes it extremely expensive or even impossible to identify who was in control of the risk of using the ai-system in question or which code or input has caused the harmful operation. this difficulty is even compounded by the connectivity between an ai-system and other ai-systems and non-ai-systems , by its dependency on external data , by its vulnerability to cybersecurity breaches as well as by the increasing autonomy of ai-systems triggered by machine-learning and deep-learning capabilities. besides these complex features and potential vulnerabilities , ai-systems could also be used to cause severe harm , such as compromising our values and freedoms by tracking individuals against their will , by introducing social credit systems or by constructing lethal autonomous weapon systems. ### (3) the rise of artificial intelligence (ai) however presents a significant challenge for the existing liability frameworks. some regulatory safeguards should prevent that ai-systems’ complexity leads to opacity for their users , and should enable to identify who was in control of the risk of using the ai-system in question or which code or input has caused the harmful operation , while acknowledging the difficulty in this task. this difficulty results from the fact that ai-systems and non-ai-systems depend on external data , and are subject to imperfection , resulting in the possibility for vulnerability to cybersecurity breaches , as well as from the design of increasingly autonomous ai-systems using , inter alia machine-learning and deep-learning techniques. besides these complex features and potential vulnerabilities , ai-systems could also be used to cause severe harm , such as compromising our values , rights and freedoms by tracking individuals against their will , by introducing social credit systems or by constructing lethal weapon systems.


### (4) at this point , it is important to point out that the advantages of deploying ai-systems will by far outweigh the disadvantages. they will help to fight climate change more effectively , to improve medical examinations , to better integrate disabled persons into the society and to provide tailor-made education courses to all types of students. to exploit the various technological opportunities and to boost people’s trust in the use of ai-systems , while at the same time preventing harmful scenarios , sound ethical standards combined with solid and fair compensation is the best way forward. ### (4) at this point , it is important to point out that public and private stakeholders should endeavour to make the advantages of deploying ai-systems outweighing the disadvantages. to this purpose , any regulatory intervention should ensure that ai-systems will abide by union law and ethical standards , will help to fight the climate emergency more effectively , to improve human well-being , notably with respect to , medical examinations and working conditions , to better integrate disabled persons into the society and to provide tailor-made education courses to all types of students. to exploit the various technological opportunities and to boost people’s trust in the use of ai-systems , while at the same time preventing harmful scenarios , sound ethical standards combined with solid and fair compensation is the best way forward.


### (5) any discussion about required changes in the existing legal framework should start with the clarification that ai-systems have neither legal personality nor human conscience , and that their sole task is to serve humanity. many ai-systems are also not so different from other technologies , which are sometimes based on even more complex software. ultimately , the large majority of ai-systems are used for handling trivial tasks without any risks for the society. there are however also ai-systems that are deployed in a critical manner and are based on neuronal networks and deep-learning processes. their opacity and autonomy could make it very difficult to trace back specific actions to specific human decisions in their design or in their operation. a deployer of such an ai-system might for instance argue that the physical or virtual activity , device or process causing the harm or damage was outside of his or her control because it was caused by an autonomous operation of his or her ai-system. the mere operation of an autonomous ai-system should at the same time not be a sufficient ground for admitting the liability claim. as a result , there might be liability cases in which a person who suffers harm or damage caused by an ai-system cannot prove the fault of the producer , of an interfering third party or of the deployer and ends up without compensation. ### (5) any discussion about required changes in the existing legal framework should start with the clarification that ai-systems have neither legal personality nor human conscience , and that their sole task is to serve humanity. many ai-systems are also not so different from other technologies , which are sometimes based on even more complex software , and developed by human intervention. ultimately , the large majority of ai-systems are used for handling trivial tasks with minimum risks for the society. there are however also ai-systems that are deployed in a critical manner and are based on technologies such as neuronal networks and deep-learning processes. their complexity and autonomy could make it difficult to trace back specific actions to specific human decisions in their design or in their operation. the person expected to be in control of such an ai-system , like the manufacturer or the operator , might for instance argue that the physical or virtual activity , device or process causing the harm or damage was outside of his or her control because it was caused by an autonomous operation of his or her ai-system. the mere operation of an autonomous ai-system should at the same time not be a sufficient ground for admitting the liability claim if not brought in connection with other elements supporting such a claim. as a result , there might be liability cases in which a person who suffers harm or damage caused by an ai-system cannot prove the fault of the producer , of an interfering third party or of the operator and ends up without compensation.


### (6) nevertheless , it should always be clear that whoever creates , maintains , controls or interferes with the ai-system , should be accountable for the harm or damage that the activity , device or process causes. this follows from general and widely accepted liability concepts of justice according to which the person that creates a risk for the public is accountable if that risk materializes. consequently , the rise of ai-systems does not pose a need for a complete revision of liability rules throughout the union. specific adjustments of the existing legislation and very few new provisions would be sufficient to accommodate the ai-related challenges. ### (6) nevertheless , it should always be clear that whoever creates , maintains , controls or interferes with the ai-system , should be accountable for the harm or damage that the activity , device or process causes. this follows from general and widely accepted liability concepts of justice according to which the person that creates or entertains a risk for the public is accountable if that risk materializes , and thus should ex-ante minimise or ex-post compensate that risk. consequently , the rise of ai-systems does not pose a need for a complete revision of liability rules throughout the union. specific adjustments of the existing legislation and very few new provisions would be sufficient to accommodate the ai-related challenges.


### (7) council directive 85/374/eec3 (the product liability directive) has proven to be an effective means of getting compensation for damage triggered by a defective product. hence , it should also be used with regard to civil liability claims of a party who suffers harm or damage against the producer of a defective ai-system. in line with the better regulation principles of the union , any necessary legislative adjustments should be discussed during a review of that directive. the existing fault-based liability law of the member states also offers in most cases a sufficient level of protection for persons that suffer harm or damages caused by an interfering third person , as that interference regularly constitutes a fault-based action. consequently , this regulation should focus on claims against the deployer of an ai-system. ### (7) council directive 85/374/eec3 (the product liability directive) has proven to be an effective means of getting compensation for damage triggered by a defective product. hence , it should also be used with regard to civil liability claims of a party who suffers harm or damage against the producer of a defective ai-system. in line with the better regulation principles of the union , any necessary legislative adjustments should be discussed during a review of that directive. the existing fault-based liability law of the member states also offers in most cases a sufficient level of protection for persons that suffer harm or damages caused by an interfering third person , as that interference regularly constitutes a fault-based action subject to situations where the third-party uses the ai system to cause harm. consequently , this regulation should focus on claims against the operator of an ai-system.


### (7) council directive 85/374/eec3 (the product liability directive) has proven to be an effective means of getting compensation for damage triggered by a defective product. hence , it should also be used with regard to civil liability claims of a party who suffers harm or damage against the producer of a defective ai-system. in line with the better regulation principles of the union , any necessary legislative adjustments should be discussed during a review of that directive. the existing fault-based liability law of the member states also offers in most cases a sufficient level of protection for persons that suffer harm or damages caused by an interfering third person , as that interference regularly constitutes a fault-based action. consequently , this regulation should focus on claims against the deployer of an ai-system. ### (7) council directive 85/374/eec3 (the product liability directive) has , for over 30 years , provided a valuable safety net to protect consumers from harm caused by defective products and needs to be updated to take account of civil liability claims of a party who suffers harm or damage against the producer of a defective ai-system. all necessary legislative adjustments should be discussed during a review of that directive. the existing fault-based liability law of the member states offers in most cases a sufficient level of protection for persons that suffer harm or damages caused by an interfering third person , but does not necessarily take account of technological developments. consequently , this regulation should focus on claims against the frontend operator and backend operator of an ai-system.


### (8) the liability of the deployer under this regulation is based on the fact that he or she controls a risk by operating an ai-system. comparable to an owner of a car or pet , the deployer is able to exercise a certain level of control over the risk that the item poses. exercising control thereby should be understood as meaning any action of the deployer that affects the manner of the operation from start to finish or that changes specific functions or processes within the ai-system. ### (8) the liability of the operator under this regulation is based on the fact that he or she controls a risk by operating an ai-system. comparable to an owner of a car or pet , the operator is able to exercise a certain level of control over the risk that the item poses. exercising control thereby should be understood as meaning any access of the operator that can affect how the risk can materialise , such as the manner of the operation from start to finish or that can change specific functions or processes within the ai-system.


### (9) if a user , namely the person that utilises the ai-system , is involved in the harmful event , he or she should only be liable under this regulation if the user also qualifies as a deployer. this regulation should not consider the backend operator , who is the person continuously defining the features of the relevant technology and providing essential and ongoing backend support , to be a deployer and thus , its provisions should not apply to him or her. for the purpose of legal certainty throughout the union , the backend operator should fall under the same liability rules as the producer , manufacturer and developer. ### (9) if a user , namely the person that utilises the ai-system , is involved in the harmful event , he or she should be liable under this regulation if the user also qualifies as an operator , otherwise the extent of the user’s grossly negligent or intentional contribution to the risk will lead to the user’s fault-based liability to the claimant. applicable consumer rights of the user should remain unaffected.


### (10) this regulation should cover in principle all ai-systems , no matter where they are operating and whether the operations take place physically or virtually. the majority of liability claims under this regulation should however address cases of third party liability , where an ai-system operates in a public space and exposes many third persons to a risk. in that situation , the affected persons will often not be aware of the operating ai-system and will not have any contractual or legal relationship towards the deployer. consequently , the operation of the ai-system puts them into a situation in which , in the event of harm or damage being caused , they only have fault-based liability claims against the deployer of the ai-system , while facing severe difficulties to prove fault on the part of the deployer. ### (10) this regulation should cover in principle all ai-systems , no matter where they are operating and whether the operations take place physically or virtually. it should contribute to bring legal certainty , inasmuch as possible and without pre-empting on future technological development , the different liability claims that the affected persons can bring throughout the liability chain and throughout the lifecycle of an ai-system.


### (11) the type of ai-system the deployer is exercising control over is a determining factor. an ai-system that entails a high risk potentially endangers the public to a much higher degree and in a manner that is random and impossible to predict in advance. this means that at the start of the autonomous operation of the ai-system , the majority of the potentially affected persons are unknown and not identifiable (e.g. persons on a public square or in a neighbouring house) , compared to the operation of an ai-system that involves specific persons , who have regularly consented to its deployment before (e.g. surgery in a hospital or sales demonstration in a small shop). determining how significant the potential to cause harm or damage by a high-risk ai-system should depend on the interplay between the manner in which the ai-system is being used , the severity of the potential harm or damage and the likelihood that the risk materialises. the degree of severity should be determined based on the extent of the potential harm resulting from the operation , the number of affected persons , the total value for the potential damage as well as the harm to society as a whole. the likelihood should be determined based on the role of the algorithmic calculations in the decision-making process , the complexity of the decision and the reversibility of the effects. ultimately , the manner of usage should depend , among other things , on the sector in which the ai-system operates , if it could have legal or factual effects on important legally protected rights of the affected person , and whether the effects can reasonably be avoided. ### (11) the type of ai-system the operator is exercising control over is a determining factor. an ai-system that entails a high risk potentially endangers the user or the public to a much higher degree and in a manner that is difficult to predict in advance. this means that at the start of the autonomous operation of the ai-system , it is impossible to predict and probably to control the possible malicious behaviour of the software while its impact can be extremely high due to the extent of harm or the nature of the goods or rights that are exposed to the risk. determining how significant the potential to cause harm or damage by a high-risk ai-system should depend on the interplay between , the purpose of use for which the ai system is put on the market , the manner in which the ai-system is being used , the severity of the potential harm or damage , the degree of autonomy of decision making that can result in harm. the degree of severity determining the level of compensation of the affected persons should be assessed based on the extent of the potential harm resulting from the operation , the number of affected persons , the total value , material and immaterial , for the potential damage as well as the harm to society as a whole. the likelihood for the harm or damage to occur should be determined based on the role of the algorithmic calculations in the decision-making process , the possibility of human intervention in this process , the complexity of the decision and the reversibility of the effects. ultimately , the manner of usage should depend , among other things , on the context in which the ai-system operates , if it could have legal or factual effects on important legally protected rights and goods of the affected person , whether the effects can reasonably be avoided , and according to the level of information provided to the users.


### (12) all ai-systems with a high risk should be listed in an annex to this regulation. given the rapid technical and market developments as well as the technical expertise which is required for an adequate review of ai-systems , the power to adopt delegated acts in accordance with article 290 of the treaty on the functioning of the european union should be delegated to the commission to amend this regulation in respect of the types of ai-systems that pose a high risk and the critical sectors where they are used. based on the definitions and provisions laid down in this regulation , the commission should review the annex every six months and , if necessary , amend it by means of delegated acts. to give businesses enough planning and investment security , changes to the critical sectors should only be made every 12 months. developers are called upon to notify the commission if they are currently working on a new technology , product or service that falls under one of the existing critical sectors provided for in the annex and which later could qualify for a high risk ai-system. ### (12) all categories of ai-systems with a high risk , as well as the criteria allowing to assess such risk , should be determined according to a structured process involving a commission expert committee and a constant consultation between the commission and all involved stakeholders , including researchers , individual experts , free software community members , scientists , engineers , as well as the competent supervisory authorities. given the rapid technical and market developments worldwide , as well as the technical expertise which is required for an adequate review of ai-systems , a list of categories of ai-systems based on criteria able to define their autonomy and to assess the level of risk over time should be updated on a regular basis , while giving businesses and research organisations enough planning and investment security.


### (13) it is of particular importance that the commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work , including at expert level , and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the interinstitutional agreement of 13 april 2016 on better law-making4 . a standing committee called 'technical committee – high-risk ai-systems' (tcrai) should support the commission in its review under this regulation. that standing committee should comprise representatives of the member states as well as a balanced selection of stakeholders , including consumer organisation , businesses representatives from different sectors and sizes , as well as researchers and scientists. in particular , to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts , the european parliament and the council receive all documents at the same time as member states' experts , and their experts systematically have access to meetings of commission expert groups as well as the standing tcrai-committee , when dealing with the preparation of delegated acts. ### (13) it is of particular importance that the commission carry out regular consultations of all relevant stakeholders during its preparatory work , including at expert level , and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the interinstitutional agreement of 13 april 2016 on better law-making. a standing committee should support the commission in its regular review under this regulation. that standing committee should comprise representatives of the member states as well as a balanced selection of stakeholders , including consumer organisation , associations representing the victims of harm or damage , businesses representatives from different sectors and sizes , as well as individual experts , researchers and scientists.


### (14) in line with strict liability systems of the member states , this regulation should cover only harm or damage to life , health , physical integrity and property. for the same reason , it should determine the amount and extent of compensation , as well as the limitation period for bringing forward liability claims. in contrast to the product liability directive , this regulation should set out a significantly lower ceiling for compensation , as it only refers to a single operation of an ai-system , while the former refers to a number of products or even a product line with the same defect. ### (14) in line with strict liability systems of the member states , this regulation should cover harm or damage to life , health , physical integrity and property , including the affected person’s data and digital environment , as well as other ergo-omnes legal goods , provided their infringement can result into material damage.


### (14) in line with strict liability systems of the member states , this regulation should cover only harm or damage to life , health , physical integrity and property. for the same reason , it should determine the amount and extent of compensation , as well as the limitation period for bringing forward liability claims. in contrast to the product liability directive , this regulation should set out a significantly lower ceiling for compensation , as it only refers to a single operation of an ai-system , while the former refers to a number of products or even a product line with the same defect. ### (14) due to the special characteristics of ai-systems , the proposed regulation should cover material as well as non-material harm , including damage to intangible property , and data , such as loss or leak of data and should ensure that damage is fully compensated in compliance with the fundamental right of redress for damage suffered.


### (15) all physical or virtual activities , devices or processes driven by ai-systems that are not listed as a high-risk ai-system in the annex to this regulation should remain subject to fault-based liability. the national laws of the member states , including any relevant jurisprudence , with regard to the amount and extent of compensation as well as the limitation period should continue to apply. a person who suffers harm or damage caused by an ai-system should however benefit from the presumption of fault of the deployer. ### (15) all physical or virtual activities , devices or processes driven by ai-systems that are not qualified as posing a high-risk , under criteria to be determined through a clear process under the auspices of the commission , should be subject to fault-based liability , notwithstanding stricter national laws and consumer protection legislation in force. the national laws of the member states , including any relevant jurisprudence , with regard to the amount and extent of compensation as well as the limitation period should continue to apply. a person who suffers harm or damage caused by an ai-system needs to prove that the claimed harm has been caused by the ai , but should benefit from the presumption of fault of the operator.


### (16) the diligence which can be expected from a deployer should be commensurate with (i) the nature of the ai system , (ii) the legally protected right potentially affected , (iii) the potential harm or damage the ai-system could cause and (iv) the likelihood of such damage. thereby , it should be taken into account that the deployer might have limited knowledge of the algorithms and data used in the ai-system. it should be presumed that the deployer has observed due care in selecting a suitable ai-system , if the deployer has selected an ai-system which has been certified under [the voluntary certification scheme envisaged on p. 24 of com(2020) 65 final]. it should be presumed that the deployer has observed due care during the operation of the ai-system , if the deployer can prove to have actually and regularly monitored the ai-system during its operation and to have notified the manufacturer about potential irregularities during the operation. it should be presumed that the deployer has observed due care as regards maintaining the operational reliability , if the deployer installed all available updates provided by the producer of the ai-system. ### (16) the diligence which can be expected from an operator should be commensurate with (i) the nature of the ai system , (ii) the information on the nature of the ai system provided to the operator and to the public , (iii) the legally protected right potentially affected , (iv) the potential harm or damage the ai-system could cause and (v) the likelihood of such damage. thereby , it should be taken into account that the operator might have limited knowledge of the algorithms and data used in the ai-system , even though a sufficient level of information should be ensured , providing for the relevant documentation on the use and design instructions , including the source code and the data used by the ai system , made easily accessible through a mandatory legal deposit. it should be presumed that the operator has observed due care in selecting a suitable ai-system , if the operator has selected an ai-system which has been certified under [the voluntary certification scheme envisaged on p. 24 of com(2020) 65 final]. it should be presumed that the operator has observed due care during the operation of the ai-system , if the operator can prove to have actually and regularly monitored the ai-system during its operation and to have notified the manufacturer about potential irregularities during the operation. it should be presumed that the operator has observed due care as regards maintaining the operational reliability , if the operator installed all available updates provided by the producer of the ai-system according to the conditions laid down in directive (eu) 2019/770. due account should be given to the possibility for the largely volunteer-based free software community to produce software for the general public to use which can be integrated , in whole or in part , into ai systems , without automatically becoming subject to obligations designed for businesses providing digital content in a professional capacity.


### (17) in order to enable the deployer to prove that he or she was not at fault , the producers should have the duty to collaborate with the deployer. european as well as non-european producers should furthermore have the obligation to designate an ai-liability-representative within the union as a contact point for replying to all requests from deployers , taking similar provisions set out in article 37 gdpr (data protection officers) , articles 3(41) and 13(4) of regulation 2018/858 of the european parliament and of the council5 and articles 4(2) and 5 of regulation 2019/1020 of the european parliament and of the council6 (manufacturer's representative) into account. ### (17) in order to enable the operator to prove that he or she was not at fault , the producers should have the duty to collaborate with the operator , including by providing well-documented information. european as well as non-european producers should furthermore have the obligation to designate an ai-liability-representative within the union as a contact point for replying to all requests from operators , taking similar provisions set out in article 37 gdpr (data protection officers) , articles 3(41) and 13(4) of regulation 2018/858 of the european parliament and of the council and articles 4(2) and 5 of regulation 2019/1020 of the european parliament and of the council(manufacturer's representative) into account.


### (18) the legislator has to consider the liability risks connected to ai-systems during their whole lifecycle , from development to usage to end of life. the inclusion of ai-systems in a product or service represents a financial risk for businesses and consequently will have a heavy impact on the ability and options for small and medium-sized enterprises (sme) as well as for start-ups in relation to insuring and financing their projects based on new technologies. the purpose of liability is , therefore , not only to safeguard important legally protected rights of individuals but also a factor which determines whether businesses , especially smes and start-ups , are able to raise capital , innovate and ultimately offer new products and services , as well as whether the customers are willing to use such products and services despite the potential risks and legal claims being brought against them. ### (18) the legislator has to consider the liability risks connected to ai-systems during their whole lifecycle , from development to usage to end of life , including the waste and recycling management. the inclusion of ai-systems in a product or service represents a financial risk for businesses and consequently will have a heavy impact on the ability and options for small and medium-sized enterprises (sme) as well as for start-ups in relation to insuring and financing their research and development projects based on new technologies. the purpose of liability is , therefore , not only to safeguard important legally protected rights of individuals but also a factor which determines whether businesses , especially smes and start-ups , are able to raise capital , innovate , research , and ultimately offer new products and services contributing to the well-being of society , as well as whether the customers trust in such products and services and are willing to use them despite the potential risks and legal claims being brought against them. in consideration of the dynamic nature of the risk pertaining to ai systems , to which the whole public is potentially exposed , civil liability rules should be governed by a high-level of protection of potentially affected persons and public goods.


### (19) insurance can help to ensure that victims can receive effective compensation as well as to pool the risks of all insured persons. one of the factors on which insurance companies base their offer of insurance products and services is risk assessment based on access to sufficient historical claim data. a lack of access to , or an insufficient quantity of high quality data could be a reason why creating insurance products for new and emerging technologies is difficult at the beginning. however , greater access to and optimising the use of data generated by new technologies will enhance insurers’ ability to model emerging risk and to foster the development of more innovative cover . ### (19) insurance can help to ensure that victims can receive effective compensation as well as to pool the risks of all insured persons. one of the factors on which insurance companies base their offer of insurance products and services is risk assessment based on access to sufficient historical claim data. a lack of access to , or an insufficient quantity of high quality data could be a reason why creating insurance products for new and emerging technologies is difficult at the beginning. however , greater access to and optimising the use of data generated by new technologies , coupled with an obligation to provide well-documented information , will enhance insurers’ ability to model emerging risk and to foster the development of more innovative cover.


### (20) despite missing historical claim data , there are already insurance products that are developed area-by-area and cover-by-cover as technology develops. many insurers specialise in certain market segments (e.g. smes) or in providing cover for certain product types (e.g. electrical goods) , which means that there will usually be an insurance product available for the insured. if a new type of insurance is needed , the insurance market will develop and offer a fitting solution and thus , will close the insurance gap. in exceptional cases , in which the compensation significantly exceeds the maximum amounts set out in this regulation , member states should be encouraged to set up a special compensation fund for a limited period of time that addresses the specific needs of those cases. ### (20) despite missing historical claim data , there are already insurance products that are developed area-by-area and cover-by-cover as technology develops. many insurers specialise in certain market segments (e.g. smes) or in providing cover for certain product types (e.g. electrical goods) , which means that there will usually be an insurance product available for the insured. if a new type of insurance is needed , the insurance market will develop and offer a fitting solution and thus , will close the insurance gap. member states should be encouraged to set up a special compensation fund to supplement the liability insurance cover in order to ensure that damages can be effectively compensated for in cases where no insurance cover exists. in order to ensure legal certainty and to fulfil the obligation to inform all potential affected persons , existence of the relevant insurance and fund shall be made publicly visible by an individual registration number appearing in a specific union register , which would allow anyone interacting with the ai system to be informed about the ways of action when a harm or a damage occurs , the limits of liability attached to it , the names and the functions of the operator and all other relevant details.


### (21) it is of utmost importance that any future changes to this text go hand in hand with a necessary review of the pld. the introduction of a new liability regime for the deployer of ai-systems requires that the provisions of this regulation and the review of the pld should be closely coordinated in terms of substance as well as approach so that they together constitute a consistent liability framework for ai-systems , balancing the interests of producer , deployer and the affected person , as regards the liability risk. adapting and streamlining the definitions of ai-system , deployer , producer , developer , defect , product and service throughout all pieces of legislation is therefore necessary. ### (21) it is of utmost importance that any future changes to this text go hand in hand with a necessary review of the pld , in order to review in a comprehensive and consistent manner the rights and obligations of all concerned parties throughout the liability chain. the introduction of a new liability regime for the operator of ai-systems requires that the provisions of this regulation and the review of the pld should be closely coordinated in terms of substance as well as approach so that they together constitute a consistent liability framework for ai-systems , balancing the interests of producer , operator , consumer and the affected person , as regards the liability risk and the relevant compensation modalities. adapting and streamlining the definitions of ai-system , operator , producer , developer , defect , product and service throughout all pieces of legislation is therefore necessary.


### (22) since the objectives of this regulation , namely to create a future-orientated and unified approach at union level , which sets common european standards for our citizens and businesses and to ensure the consistency of rights and legal certainty throughout the union , in order to avoid fragmentation of the digital single market , which would hamper the goal of maintaining digital sovereignty and of fostering digital innovation in europe , require that the liability regimes for ai-systems are fully harmonized. since this cannot be sufficiently achieved by the member states due to the rapid technological change , the cross-border development as well as the usage of ai-systems and eventually , the conflicting legislative approaches across the union , but can rather , by reason of the scale or effects of the action , be achieved at union level. the union may adopt measures , in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in article 5 of the treaty on european union. in accordance with the principle of proportionality as set out in that article , this regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve these objectives , ### (22) since the objectives of this regulation , namely to create a future-orientated and unified approach at union level , which sets common european standards for our citizens and businesses and to ensure the consistency of rights and legal certainty throughout the union , in order to avoid fragmentation of the digital single market , which would hamper the goal of maintaining digital sovereignty , of fostering digital innovation and of ensuring a high-level protection of citizen and consumer rights in europe , require that the liability regimes for ai-systems are fully harmonized. since this cannot be sufficiently achieved by the member states due to the rapid technological change , the cross-border development as well as the usage of ai-systems and eventually , the conflicting legislative approaches across the union , but can rather , by reason of the scale or effects of the action , be achieved at union level. the union may adopt measures , in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in article 5 of the treaty on european union. in accordance with the principle of proportionality as set out in that article , this regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve these objectives.


### this regulation sets out rules for the civil liability claims of natural and legal persons against the deployer of ai-systems. ### this regulation sets out rules for the civil liability claims of natural and legal persons against the operator of ai-systems.


### 1. this regulation applies on the territory of the union where a physical or virtual activity , device or process driven by an ai-system has caused harm or damage to the life , health , physical integrity or the property of a natural or legal person. ### 1. this regulation applies on the territory of the union where a physical or virtual activity , device or process driven by an ai-system or autonomous decision-making (adm) system has caused harm or damage to the life , health , physical integrity and property of a natural or legal person , including the affected person’s data and digital environment , as well as other ergo-omnes legal rights , provided their infringement can result into material damage.


### 2. any agreement between a deployer of an ai-system and a natural or legal person who suffers harm or damage because of the ai-system , which circumvents or limits the rights and obligations set out in this regulation , whether concluded before or after the harm or damage has been caused , shall be deemed null and void. ### 2. any agreement between an operator of an ai-system and a natural or legal person who suffers harm or damage because of the ai-system , which circumvents or limits the rights and obligations set out in this regulation , whether concluded before or after the harm or damage has been caused , shall be deemed ineffective regarding rights and obligations set out under this regulation.


### 3. this regulation is without prejudice to any additional liability claims resulting from contractual relationships between the deployer and the natural or legal person who suffered harm or damage because of the ai-system. ### 3. this regulation is without prejudice to any additional liability claims resulting from contractual relationships , as well as from regulations on product liability , consumer protection , anti-discrimination , labour and environmental protection between the operator and the natural or legal person who suffered harm or damage because of the ai-system.


### ‘ai-system’ means a system that displays intelligent behaviour by analysing certain input and taking action , with some degree of autonomy , to achieve specific goals. ai-systems can be purely software-based , acting in the virtual world , or can be embedded in hardware devices; ### ‘ai-system’ means a system that displays behaviour simulating intelligence by analysing certain input and taking action , with some degree of autonomy , to achieve specific goals;


### ‘autonomous’ means an ai-system that operates by perceiving certain input and without needing to follow a set of pre-determined instructions , despite its behaviour being constrained by the goal it was given and other relevant design choices made by its developer; ### ‘autonomous’ means an ai-system or adm system that operates on its owner’s behalf but without any interference from that ownership entity , perceiving certain input and going beyond a set of pre-determined instructions , despite its behaviour being constrained by and targeted at fulfilling the goal it was given and other relevant design choices made by its developer;


### ‘high risk’ means a significant potential in an autonomously operating ai-system to cause harm or damage to one or more persons in a manner that is random and impossible to predict in advance; the significance of the potential depends on the interplay between the severity of possible harm or damage , the likelihood that the risk materializes and the manner in which the ai-system is being used; ### ‘high risk’ means a significant potential in an autonomously operating ai-system to cause harm or damage to one or more persons in a manner that is difficult to predict in advance; the significance of the potential depends on the interplay between the severity of possible harm or damage , the degree of autonomy of decision-making and the manner and context in which the ai-system is being used , especially the value of goods and rights exposed to the risk;


### ‘deployer’ means the person who decides on the use of the ai-system , exercises control over the associated risk and benefits from its operation; ### ‘operator’ means the person who exercises control over the associated risk and benefits from its operation , including the frontend and the backend operator , the latter being the person continuously defining the features of the relevant technology and providing essential and ongoing backend support;


### ‘affected person’ means any person who suffers harm or damage caused by a physical or virtual activity , device or process driven by an ai-system , and who is not its deployer; ### affected person’ means any person whose goods or rights are injured by a physical or virtual activity , device or process driven by an ai-system ,


### ‘harm or damage’ means an adverse impact affecting the life , health , physical integrity or property of a natural or legal person , with the exception of non-material harm; ### 'harm or damage’ means an adverse impact on the aforementioned goods and rights;


### ‘producer’ means the developer or the backend operator of an ai-system , or the producer as defined in article 3 of council directive 85/374/eec7 . ### ‘producer’ means the developer of an ai-system , or the producer as defined in article 3 of council directive 85/374/eec7 .


### 1. the deployer of a high-risk ai-system shall be strictly liable for any harm or damage that was caused by a physical or virtual activity , device or process driven by that ai-system. ### 1. the operator of a high-risk ai-system shall be strictly liable for any harm or damage that was caused by a physical or virtual activity , device or process driven by that ai-system.


### 2. the high-risk ai-systems as well as the critical sectors where they are used shall be listed in the annex to this regulation. the commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with article 13 , to amend the exhaustive list in the annex , by: ### 2. the categories of high-risk ai-systems , as well as the criteria used to define such high risk , shall be determined under a structured consultation process between the commission , competent supervisory authorities and all involved stakeholders , including civil society representatives , with regular updates in order to reflect the rapid path of technological change.


### including new types of high-risk ai-systems and critical sectors in which they are deployed; ### deleted


### deleting types of ai-systems that can no longer be considered to pose a high risk; and/or ### deleted


### changing the critical sectors for existing high-risk ai-systems. ### deleted


### any delegated act amending the annex shall come into force six months after its adoption. when determining new critical sectors and/or high-risk ai-systems to be inserted by means of delegated acts in the annex , the commission shall take full account of the criteria set out in this regulation , in particular those set out in article 3(c). ### deleted


### 3. the deployer of a high-risk ai-system shall not be able to exonerate himself or herself by arguing that he or she acted with due diligence or that the harm or damage was caused by an autonomous activity , device or process driven by his or her ai-system. the deployer shall not be held liable if the harm or damage was caused by force majeure. ### 3. the operator of a high-risk ai-system shall not be able to exonerate himself or herself by arguing that he or she acted with due diligence or that the harm or damage was caused by an autonomous activity , device or process driven by his or her ai-system.


### 4. the deployer of a high-risk ai-system shall ensure they have liability insurance cover that is adequate in relation to the amounts and extent of compensation provided for in article 5 and 6 of this regulation. if compulsory insurance regimes already in force pursuant to other union or national law are considered to cover the operation of the ai-system , the obligation to take out insurance for the ai-system pursuant to this regulation shall be deemed fulfilled , as long as the relevant existing compulsory insurance covers the amounts and the extent of compensation provided for in articles 5 and 6 of this regulation. ### 4. the operator of a high-risk ai-system shall ensure she or he has liability insurance cover that is adequate in relation to the extent of compensation provided for in article 5 of this regulation. if compulsory insurance regimes already in force pursuant to other union or national law are considered to cover the operation of the ai-system , the obligation to take out insurance for the ai-system pursuant to this regulation shall be deemed fulfilled.


### 5. this regulation shall prevail over national liability regimes in the event of conflicting strict liability classification of ai-systems. ### 5. this regulation shall prevail over national liability regimes in the event of conflicting strict liability classification of ai-systems , insofar as this regulation provides for the more favourable rules to the affected persons and to consumer rights.


### amount of compensation ### amount and extent of compensation


### 1. a deployer of a high-risk ai-system that has been held liable for harm or damage under this regulation shall compensate: ### 1. an operator of a high-risk ai-system that has been held liable for harm or damage under this regulation shall compensate in accordance with the national rules for calculation of damages.


### up to a maximum total amount of eur ten million in the event of death or of harm caused to the health or physical integrity of one or several persons as the result of the same operation of the same high-risk ai-system; ### deleted


### up to a maximum total amount of eur two million in the event of damage caused to property , including when several items of property of one or several persons were damaged as a result of the same operation of the same high-risk ai-system; where the affected person also holds a contractual liability claim against the deployer , no compensation shall be paid under this regulation if the total amount of the damage to property is of a value that falls below eur 500. ### deleted


### 2. where the combined compensation to be paid to several persons who suffer harm or damage caused by the same operation of the same high-risk ai-system exceeds the maximum total amounts provided for in paragraph 1 , the amounts to be paid to each person shall be reduced pro-rata so that the combined compensation does not exceed the maximum amounts set out in paragraph 1. ### deleted


### article 6 ### deleted


### 2. civil liability claims , brought in accordance with article 4(1) , concerning damage to property shall be subject to a special limitation period of: ### 2. civil liability claims , brought in accordance with article 4(1) , concerning damage to property and other rights shall be subject to a special limitation period of:


### 30 years from the date on which the operation of the high-risk ai-system that subsequently caused the property damage took place. ### 30 years from the date on which the presumed causal event of the operation of the high-risk ai-system that subsequently caused the property damage took place.


### of the periods referred to in the first subparagraph , the period that ends first shall be applicable. ### deleted


### 1. the deployer of an ai-system that is not defined as a high-risk ai-system , in accordance to article 3(c) and , as a result is not listed in the annex to this regulation , shall be subject to fault-based liability for any harm or damage that was caused by a physical or virtual activity , device or process driven by the ai-system. ### 1. the operator of an ai-system that is not defined as a high-risk ai-system , in accordance to article 3(c) and , as a result is not listed in the annex to this regulation , shall be subject to fault-based liability for any harm or damage that was caused by a physical or virtual activity , device or process driven by the ai-system.


### 2. the deployer shall not be liable if he or she can prove that the harm or damage was caused without his or her fault , relying on either of the following grounds’: ### 2. the fault of the operator shall be presumed , unless he or she can prove that the harm or damage was caused without his or her fault , relying on either of the following grounds’:


### the ai-system was activated without his or her knowledge while all reasonable and necessary measures to avoid such activation were taken , or ### the ai-system was activated without his or her knowledge while all reasonable and necessary measures to avoid such activation outside of the operator’s control were taken , or


### due diligence was observed by selecting a suitable ai-system for the right task and skills , putting the ai-system duly into operation , monitoring the activities and maintaining the operational reliability by regularly installing all available updates. ### due diligence was observed by performing all the following actions: selecting a suitable ai-system for the right task and skills , putting the ai-system duly into operation , monitoring the activities , providing well-documented information and maintaining the operational reliability by regularly installing all available updates.


### the deployer shall not be able to escape liability by arguing that the harm or damage was caused by an autonomous activity , device or process driven by his or her ai-system. the deployer shall not be liable if the harm or damage was caused by force majeure. ### the operator shall not be able to escape liability by arguing that the harm or damage was caused by an autonomous activity , device or process driven by his or her ai-system. the operator shall not be liable if the harm or damage was caused by force majeure.


### 3. where the harm or damage was caused by a third party that interfered with the ai-system by modifying its functioning , the deployer shall nonetheless be liable for the payment of compensation if such third party is untraceable or impecunious. ### 3. where the harm or damage was caused by a third party that interfered with the ai-system by modifying its functioning or its effects , the operator shall nonetheless be liable for the payment of compensation if such third party is untraceable or impecunious.


### 4. at the request of the deployer , the producer of an ai-system shall have the duty of collaborating with the deployer to the extent warranted by the significance of the claim in order to allow the deployer to prove that he or she acted without fault. ### 4. at the request of the operator , the producer of an ai-system shall have the duty of collaborating with and providing information to the operator to the extent warranted by the significance of the claim in order to allow the operator to prove that he or she acted without fault.


### 1. if the harm or damage is caused both by a physical or virtual activity , device or process driven by an ai-system and by the actions of an affected person or of any person for whom the affected person is responsible , the deployer’s extent of liability under this regulation shall be reduced accordingly. the deployer shall not be liable if the affected person or the person for whom he or she is responsible is solely or predominantly accountable for the harm or damage caused. ### 1. if the harm or damage is caused both by a physical or virtual activity , device or process driven by an ai-system and by the actions of an affected person or of any person for whom the affected person is responsible , the operator’s extent of liability under this regulation shall be reduced accordingly.


### 2. a deployer held liable may use the data generated by the ai-system to prove contributory negligence on the part of the affected person. ### 2. an operator held liable may use the data generated by the ai-system to prove contributory negligence on the part of the affected person , in accordance with regulation (eu) 2016/679 and other relevant data protection laws. the affected person may also use these data as a way of proof or clarification in the liability claim.


### if there is more than one deployer of an ai-system , they shall be jointly and severally liable. if any of the deployers is also the producer of the ai-system , this regulation shall prevail over the product liability directive. ### if there is more than one operator of an ai-system , they shall be jointly and severally liable. if any of the operators is also the producer of the ai-system , this regulation shall prevail over the product liability directive , provided that the level of protection of the consumer and of the affected person is not lower than the one provided under the product liability directive.


### 1. the deployer shall not be entitled to pursue a recourse action unless the affected person , who is entitled to receive compensation under this regulation , has been paid in full. ### 1. the operator shall not be entitled to pursue a recourse action unless the affected person , who is entitled to receive compensation under this regulation , has been paid in full.


### 2. in the event that the deployer is held jointly and severally liable with other deployers in respect of an affected person and has fully compensated that affected person , in accordance with article 4(1) or 8(1) , that deployer may recover part of the compensation from the other deployers , in proportion to his or her liability. deployers , that are jointly and severally liable , shall be obliged in equal proportions in relation to one another , unless otherwise determined. if the contribution attributable to a jointly and severally liable deployer cannot be obtained from him or her , the shortfall shall be borne by the other deployers. to the extent that a jointly and severally liable deployer compensates the affected person and demands adjustment of advancements from the other liable deployers , the claim of the affected person against the other deployers shall be subrogated to him or her. the subrogation of claims shall not be asserted to the disadvantage of the original claim. ### 2. in the event that the operator is held jointly and severally liable with other operators in respect of an affected person and has fully compensated that affected person , in accordance with article 4(1) or 8(1) , that operator may recover part of the compensation from the other operators , in proportion to his or her liability. operators , that are jointly and severally liable , shall be obliged in equal proportions in relation to one another , unless otherwise determined. if the contribution attributable to a jointly and severally liable operator cannot be obtained from him or her , the shortfall shall be borne by the other operators. to the extent that a jointly and severally liable operator compensates the affected person and demands adjustment of advancements from the other liable operators , the claim of the affected person against the other operators shall be subrogated to him or her. the subrogation of claims shall not be asserted to the disadvantage of the original claim.


### 3. in the event that the deployer of a defective ai-system fully indemnifies the affected person for harm or damages in accordance with article 4(1) or 8(1) , he or she may take action for redress against the producer of the defective ai-system according to directive 85/374/eec and to national provisions concerning liability for defective products. ### 3. in the event that the operator of a defective ai-system fully indemnifies the affected person for harm or damages in accordance with article 4(1) or 8(1) , he or she may take action for redress against the producer of the defective ai-system according to directive 85/374/eec and to national provisions concerning liability for defective products.


### 4. in the event that the insurer of the deployer indemnifies the affected person for harm or damage in accordance with article 4(1) or 8(1) , any civil liability claim of the affected person against another person for the same damage shall be subrogated to the insurer of the deployer to the amount the insurer of the deployer has compensated the affected person. ### 4. in the event that the insurer of the operator indemnifies the affected person for harm or damage in accordance with article 4(1) or 8(1) , any civil liability claim of the affected person against another person for the same damage shall be subrogated to the insurer of the operator to the amount the insurer of the operator has compensated the affected person.


### article 13 ### deleted


### by 1 january 202x [5 years after the date of application of this regulation] , and every three years thereafter , the commission shall present to the european parliament , the council and the european economic and social committee a detailed report reviewing this regulation in the light of the further development of artificial intelligence. ### by 1 january 202x [3 years after the date of application of this regulation] , and every two years thereafter , the commission shall present to the european parliament , the council and the european economic and social committee a detailed report reviewing this regulation in the light of the further development of artificial intelligence.


### when preparing the report referred to in the first subparagraph , the commission shall request relevant information from member states relating to case law , court settlements as well as accident statistics , such as the number of accidents , damage done , ai applications involved , compensation paid by insurance companies. ### when preparing the report referred to in the first subparagraph , the commission shall request relevant information from member states relating to case law , court settlements as well as accident statistics , such as the number of accidents , damage done , ai applications involved , compensation paid by insurance companies , but also an assessment of the number of claims brought by affected persons , either individually or collectively , and of the delays in which these claims are treated in court.


### the commission’s report shall be accompanied , where appropriate , by legislative proposals. ### the commission’s report shall be accompanied , where appropriate , by legislative proposals , meant to address the identified gaps.


### exhaustive list of ai-systems that pose a high risk as well as of critical sectors where the ai-systems are being deployed1 ### deleted


### 2. considers that important efforts have been made to increase sound scientific knowledge of marine biological resources. although knowledge has improved , we are still far from optimum in order to provide for an appropriate assessment; considers that union funds must therefore be increased for both international and member states’ scientific research organisations to further improve the evaluation of stocks. ### 2. considers that important efforts have been made to increase sound scientific knowledge of marine biological resources and that , although knowledge has improved , budget appropriations under section iii , title 11 should be kept at the same level for this purpose;


### 2. notes that 8 ,3 % of total commitments are related to reversing the decline in biodiversity; calls for sufficient and traceable resources to be allocated to ensure the long-term protection of biodiversity across the union; ### 2. deplores that only 8 ,3 % of total commitments are related to reversing the decline in biodiversity which is the lowest ratio since 2015; calls for sufficient increases to be allocated to ensure the long-term protection of biodiversity across the union;


### 2. emphasises the importance of ensuring sufficient resources for the coordination and surveillance of macroeconomic policies as well transparent communication to eu citizens; ### 2. emphasises the importance of ensuring sufficient resources for the coordination and surveillance of macroeconomic policies as well transparent communication and outreach to eu citizens; recalls the need to improve the quality and language choice of the information presented online , so that it reflects more closely citizens’ frequent questions and respond in a compelling way and with factual arguments to criticism against the euro and the monetary union;


### 3. underlines the importance of a robust consumer policy that gives protection and predictability to consumers both offline and online , and confidence to businesses to provide their goods and services across the internal market; ### 3. underlines the importance of a robust consumer policy that gives protection and predictability to consumers both offline and online , safeguards their interest , safety and information , improves the confidence of business to provide their goods and services across the internal market , and ensures market surveillance and compliance with , and enforcement of , eu and national law;


### 3. points out that more than half of the union’s supply of fisheries products come from international waters and the exclusive economic zones of third countries; considers that adequate and reliable budgetary provisions must be calculated in the annual budget for 2020 in order to comply with the international fisheries agreement obligations and developing the union's participation in regional fisheries management organisations. ### 3. points out that more than half of the union’s supply of fisheries products come from international waters and the exclusive economic zones of third countries; considers it essential for adequate and reliable budgetary provisions to be calculated in the annual budget for 2020 in order to comply with the international fisheries agreement obligations and developing the union's participation in regional fisheries management organisations.


### 3. calls for adequate resources for the european supervisory authorities (esas) in view of their new tasks; underlines that the esas should continue to increase their efficiency without compromising on the quality of their work with a focus on continuous re-assessment of working methods and of effective use of human and financial resources; emphasises that the esas must stick to the tasks and to the mandate assigned to them by the european legislator; ### 3. calls for adequate resources for the european supervisory authorities (esas) in view of their new tasks; emphasizes that all three esas should receive adequate funding in order to be able to fulfil their newly assigned tasks and powers in consumer protection , supervision and in the fight against money laundering and terrorism financing according to their specific mandates; underlines that the esas should continue to increase their efficiency without compromising on the quality of their work with a focus on continuous re-assessment of working methods and of effective use of human and financial resources; emphasises that the esas must stick to the tasks and to the mandate assigned to them by the european legislator;


### 4. recalls that aquaculture is becoming an important element in the objective to cope with increasing consumption of fisheries products in the union. ### 4. recalls that , in environmental terms also , sustainable aquaculture is becoming an important element in the objective to cope with increasing consumption of fisheries products in the union.


### 4. emphasises that funding to accounting entities and tax authorities should continue; ### 4. emphasises that funding to accounting entities should continue and that those entities should be accountable to the european parliament; underlines the need for increased human and financial resources for tax authorities to fight tax fraud , evasion and aggressive tax planning; underlines the need for adequate funding for the european commission’s proper assessment of anti-money laundering standards by member states;


### 6. reiterates the importance of coastal and small artisanal fleet emphasises that sector represents nearly 75 % of all fishing vessels registered in the union and nearly half of all employment in the fisheries sector; notes that operators from small-scale coastal fisheries are dependent on healthy fish stocks for their main source of income. ### 6. reiterates the importance of coastal and small artisanal fleet; emphasises that sector represents nearly 75 % of all fishing vessels registered in the union and nearly half of all employment in the fisheries sector;


### 7. calls on the commission and member states to help communities that depend on fisheries to diversify their economies into other maritime activities such as tourism , and help them to add more value to their fishing activities. ### 7. calls on the commission and member states to provide funding for communities that depend on fisheries to diversify their economies into other maritime activities such as tourism , and help them to add more value to their fishing activities.


### 9. highlights that the european fisheries control agency (efca) plays a fundamental role in coordinating and implementing the cfp; points out that this should be reflected in its budget. ### 9. highlights that the european fisheries control agency (efca) plays a fundamental role in coordinating and implementing the cfp and that funding should accordingly be maintained at current levels;


### 1. recalls that effective and carefully considered employment policy enhancements reflecting demographic and automation challenges , accompanied by well-targeted investment strategies and responsible fiscal policies , continue to be an important precondition for sustainable growth which is the key factor leading to quality employment and boosting upward social convergence; ### 1. recalls that sustainable growth , well-targeted investment and fiscal policy are the key to creation of quality jobs and increased prosperity for all and that it is necessary to direct the structural funds and investments more effectively towards promoting inclusive growth , reducing inequalities and boosting upward social convergence;


### 1. recalls that appropriate financial measures are needed to guarantee a viable fisheries sector , points out that the objectives of the cfp can only be achieved if there is a sufficient budget; points out that that budget is concentrated in section iii and title 11 , ‘maritime affairs and fisheries’; recalls that the european maritime and fisheries fund (emff) and the compulsory contributions to regional fisheries management organisations and sustainable fisheries agreements make up most of the budget; ### 1. recalls that appropriate financial measures are needed to guarantee a viable fisheries sector , points out that the objectives of the cfp can only be achieved if there is a sufficient budget; points out that that budget is concentrated in section iii and title 11 , ‘maritime affairs and fisheries’; recalls that the european maritime and fisheries fund (emff) and the compulsory contributions to regional fisheries management organisations and sustainable fisheries agreements rightfully make up most of the budget;


### 1. underlines that 21 ,0 % of the total commitments in the draft budget for 2020 (2020 db) are climate-related; regrets that the union budget trend would deliver only 19 ,7 % for the current multiannual financial framework (mff) period; stresses that every effort should be made to ensure that the overall eu budget target will be reached by the end of 2020; reiterates its call to have more ambitious climate mainstreaming in the next mff period and to its alignment with the paris agreement; ### 1. underlines that 21 ,0 % of the total commitments in the draft budget for 2020 (2020 db) are climate-related; regrets that the union budget trend would deliver only 19 ,7 % for the current multiannual financial framework (mff) period while the objective agreed upon before 2014 said ‘‘at least 20%’’ over the 2014-2020 period; highlights that , according to the commission , an additional € 3 ,5 billion in climate-related spending will be needed in the budget 2020 in order to reach the 20 % target; stresses that every effort should be made to ensure that the overall eu budget target will be reached by the end of 2020; reiterates its call to have more ambitious climate mainstreaming in the next mff period , to be set at least at 50 % , and to its alignment with the paris agreement;


### 1. calls for the 2020 budget to contribute to the fulfilment of the priorities outlined in the european semester , namely to deliver high-quality investment and reforms that increase productivity growth , continuing to ensure macro-financial stability and sound public finances , and deepening the single market , as well as the completion of the economic and monetary union (emu); ### 1. calls for the 2020 budget to give as much consideration to european social and environmental objectives as to the fulfilment of the priorities outlined in the european semester , namely to support high-quality private and public investment and reforms that increase productivity growth , reduce inequality , strengthen social cohesion and continue to ensure macro-financial stability and sound public finances , deepening the single market , and the completion of the economic and monetary union (emu);


### 5. highlights that special importance should be granted in the 2020 budget to the financial resources designated to help the fleet to a smooth implementation of the landing obligation schemes. ### 5. highlights that special importance should be granted in the 2020 budget to the financial resources designated to help the fleet to a smooth implementation of the landing obligation schemes , especially through specific aid for small-scale coastal fishing fleets.


### 8. remarks that the adoption of the current multiannual plans and the implementation of new technical measures to contribute to achieving fishing at sustainable levels requires a robust control policy supported by adequate funds. ### 8. remarks that the adoption of the current multiannual plans and the implementation of new technical measures to contribute to achieving fishing at sustainable levels requires a proportionate control policy supported by adequate funds , especially for the small coastal fishing fleets;


### 11. highlights that , six years after the adoption of the current fund , the level of implementation of the 2014-2020 emff is very low and that commission and member states must speed up the management and control processes and alleviate the administrative burdens to ensure appropriate and timely benefits to the sector. ### 11. highlights that , six years after the adoption of the current fund , the level of implementation of the 2014-2020 emff is still very low and that commission and member states must exercise control over the national payment agencies , speed up the management and control processes and alleviate the administrative burdens to ensure appropriate and timely benefits to the sector;


### 18. notes that in the draft budget for 2020 the union contribution amounts to a total of eur 8 372 000; considers more realistic that the contribution be increased by eur 1 ,8 million and that 15 additional posts should be made available in order to cover infrastructure and operating expenditure and to start the development of the eppo case management system. ### 18. notes that in the draft budget for 2020 the union contribution amounts to a total of eur 8 372 000; recalls that the office shall be a key actor in combatting crimes against the eu budget and therefore considers more realistic that the contribution be increased by eur 1 ,8 million and that 15 additional posts should be made available in order to cover infrastructure and operating expenditure and to start the development of the eppo case management system , taking also into account that eppo was established under the enhanced cooperation procedure and may operate in more member states in the future than currently foreseen.


### (3) the type-approval requirements relating to emissions from motor vehicles have been gradually and significantly tightened through the introduction and subsequent revision of euro standards. while vehicles in general have delivered substantial emission reductions across the range of regulated pollutants , this was not the case for nox emissions from diesel engines or particles for gasoline direct injection engines , installed in particular in light-duty vehicles. actions for correcting this situation are therefore needed. ### (3) the type-approval requirements relating to emissions from motor vehicles have been gradually and significantly tightened through the introduction and subsequent revision of euro standards. while vehicles in general have delivered substantial emission reductions across the range of regulated pollutants , this was not the case for nox emissions from diesel engines or particles for gasoline direct injection engines , installed in particular in light-duty vehicles , mostly due to illegal practices that resulted in discrepancies between emissions measured in laboratories and those in real use conditions , including hazardous spikes in particles resulting from cars cleaning their filters. actions for correcting this situation are therefore needed to ensure euro 6 standards are met under normal condition of use and to enable member states to comply with union air quality standards without further delay , in particular in urban areas.


### (3) the type-approval requirements relating to emissions from motor vehicles have been gradually and significantly tightened through the introduction and subsequent revision of euro standards. while vehicles in general have delivered substantial emission reductions across the range of regulated pollutants , this was not the case for nox emissions from diesel engines or particles for gasoline direct injection engines , installed in particular in light-duty vehicles. actions for correcting this situation are therefore needed. ### (3) the type-approval requirements relating to emissions from motor vehicles have been gradually and significantly tightened through the introduction and subsequent revision of euro standards. while vehicles in general have delivered substantial emission reductions across the range of regulated pollutants , this was not the case for nox emissions from diesel engines or particles for gasoline direct injection engines , installed in particular in light-duty vehicles , mostly due to illegal practices that resulted in discrepancies between emission measures in laboratories and in real work conditions. actions for correcting this situation are therefore needed to ensure euro 6 standards are met under all normal conditions of use and to enable member states to comply with union air quality standards without further delay , in particular in urban areas.


### (3) the type-approval requirements relating to emissions from motor vehicles have been gradually and significantly tightened through the introduction and subsequent revision of euro standards. while vehicles in general have delivered substantial emission reductions across the range of regulated pollutants , this was not the case for nox emissions from diesel engines or particles for gasoline direct injection engines , installed in particular in light-duty vehicles. actions for correcting this situation are therefore needed. ### (3) the type-approval requirements relating to emissions from motor vehicles have been gradually and significantly tightened through the introduction and subsequent revision of euro standards. while vehicles in general have delivered substantial emission reductions across the range of regulated pollutants , this was not the case for nox emissions from diesel engines or particles for gasoline direct injection engines , installed in particular in light-duty vehicles. it is necessary that research , type-approval and theimplementation period are taken into account in any type of action that is to be taken.


### (6) regulation (eu) 2016/64621 introduced the dates of application of the rde test procedure , as well as the compliance criteria for rde. for that purpose , pollutant-specific conformity factors were used to take account of statistical and technical uncertainties of the measurements conducted by means of portable emission measurement systems (pems). ### (6) regulation (eu) 2016/64621 introduced the dates of application of the rde test procedure , as well as the compliance criteria for rde. in the first phase , temporary pollutant-specific conformity factors were introduced to grant manufacturers leeway in order to adapt to any change in the testing methodologies. in the second phase , final pollutant-specific conformity factors were presented by the commission as necessary to take account of statistical and technical uncertainties of the measurements conducted by means of portable emission measurement systems (pems).


### (8) the general court did not question the technical justification of the conformity factors. therefore , and given that at the current stage of technological development there is still a discrepancy between emissions measured in real driving and those measured in a laboratory , it is appropriate to introduce the conformity factors into regulation (ec) no 715/2007. ### (8) the general court questioned the technical justification of the conformity factors in its ruling , by pointing out the uncertainty it would bring for competent authorities within the framework of their approval and market surveillance activities when determining whether or not the vehicle being tested complies with the limits set out in regulation (ec) no 715/2007 , thereby altering an essential element of that regulation , as well as with directive 2008/50/ec as regards emission limits.


### (9) in order to allow manufacturers to comply with the euro 6 emission limits in the context of rde test procedure , the compliance criteria for rde should be introduced in two steps. during the first step , upon the request of the manufacturer , a temporary conformity factor should apply , while as a second step only the final conformity factor should be used. the commission should keep under review the final conformity factors in light of technical progress. ### deleted


### (11) in order to contribute to the achievement of the union’s air quality objectives and to reduce vehicle emissions , the power to adopt acts in accordance with article 290 of the treaty on the functioning of the european union (tfue) should be delegated to the commission in respect of the detailed rules on the specific procedures , tests and requirements for type approval. that delegation should include supplementing regulation (ec) no 715/2007 by such revised rules as well as the test cycles used to measure emissions; the requirements for the implementation of the prohibition on the use of defeat devices that reduce the effectiveness of emission control systems; the measures necessary for the implementation of the obligation of a manufacturer to provide unrestricted and standardised access to vehicle repair and maintenance information; the adoption of a revised measurement procedure for particulates. the delegation should further include amending regulation (ec) no 715/2007 for the purposes of revising the final conformity factors downwards to reflect technical progress in pems and recalibrating the particulate mass based limit values and introducing particle number based limit values. it is of particular importance that the commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work , including at expert level , and that those consultations are conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the interinstitutional agreement on better law-making of 13 april 2016. in particular , to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts , the european parliament and the council should receive all documents at the same time as member states’ experts , and their experts systematically should have access to meetings of commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts. ### (11) in order to contribute to the achievement of the union’s air quality objectives and to reduce vehicle emissions , the power to adopt acts in accordance with article 290 of the treaty on the functioning of the european union (tfue) should be delegated to the commission in respect of the detailed rules on the specific procedures , tests and requirements for type approval. that delegation should include supplementing regulation (ec) no 715/2007 by such revised rules as well as the test cycles used to measure emissions; the requirements for the implementation of the prohibition on the use of defeat devices that reduce the effectiveness of emission control systems; the measures necessary for the implementation of the obligation of a manufacturer to provide unrestricted and standardised access to vehicle repair and maintenance information; the adoption of a revised measurement procedure for particulates. the delegation should further include amending regulation (ec) no 715/2007 for the purposes of recalibrating the particulate mass based limit values and introducing particle number based limit values. it is of particular importance that the commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work , including at expert level , and that those consultations are conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the interinstitutional agreement on better law-making of 13 april 2016. in particular , to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts , the european parliament and the council should receive all documents at the same time as member states’ experts , and their experts systematically should have access to meetings of commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts.


### (11) in order to contribute to the achievement of the union’s air quality objectives and to reduce vehicle emissions , the power to adopt acts in accordance with article 290 of the treaty on the functioning of the european union (tfue) should be delegated to the commission in respect of the detailed rules on the specific procedures , tests and requirements for type approval. that delegation should include supplementing regulation (ec) no 715/2007 by such revised rules as well as the test cycles used to measure emissions; the requirements for the implementation of the prohibition on the use of defeat devices that reduce the effectiveness of emission control systems; the measures necessary for the implementation of the obligation of a manufacturer to provide unrestricted and standardised access to vehicle repair and maintenance information; the adoption of a revised measurement procedure for particulates. the delegation should further include amending regulation (ec) no 715/2007 for the purposes of revising the final conformity factors downwards to reflect technical progress in pems and recalibrating the particulate mass based limit values and introducing particle number based limit values. it is of particular importance that the commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work , including at expert level , and that those consultations are conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the interinstitutional agreement on better law-making of 13 april 2016. in particular , to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts , the european parliament and the council should receive all documents at the same time as member states' experts , and their experts systematically should have access to meetings of commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts. ### (11) in order to contribute to the achievement of the union’s air quality objectives and to reduce vehicle emissions , the power to adopt acts in accordance with article 290 of the treaty on the functioning of the european union (tfeu) should be delegated to the commission in respect of the detailed rules on the specific procedures , tests and requirements for type approval. that delegation should include supplementing regulation (ec) no 715/2007 by such revised rules as well as the test cycles used to measure emissions; the requirements for the implementation of the prohibition on the use of defeat devices that reduce the effectiveness of emission control systems; the measures necessary for the implementation of the obligation of a manufacturer to provide unrestricted and standardised access to vehicle repair and maintenance information; the adoption of a revised measurement procedure for particulates. the delegation should further include amending regulation (ec) no 715/2007 for the purposes of recalibrating the particulate mass based limit values and introducing particle number based limit values. it is of particular importance that the commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work , including at expert level , and that those consultations are conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the interinstitutional agreement on better law-making of 13 april 2016. in particular , to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts , the european parliament and the council should receive all documents at the same time as member states' experts , and their experts systematically should have access to meetings of commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts.


### (14) since the objectives of this regulation , namely to lay down rules on emissions from motor vehicles in order to contribute to the achievement of the basic air quality objectives , cannot be sufficiently achieved by the member states as motor vehicles with a valid type approval may be marketed across national boundaries but can rather , by reason of the scale and effects of the action , be better achieved at union level , the union may adopt measures , in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in article 5 of the treaty on european union. in accordance with the principle of proportionality , as set out in that article , this regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives. ### (14) the objectives of this regulation , namely to lay down rules on emissions from motor vehicles in order to contribute to the achievement of the air quality objectives , can only be sufficiently achieved by member states if vehicles with combustion engines , including even those with a valid type approval , may be banned.