### 6. the commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts to amend paragraphs 1 and 2 in order to subject high-risk ai systems referred to in points 2 to 8 of annex iii to the conformity assessment procedure referred to in annex vii or parts thereof. the commission shall adopt such delegated acts taking into account the effectiveness of the conformity assessment procedure based on internal control referred to in annex vi in preventing or minimizing the risks to health and safety and protection of fundamental rights posed by such systems as well as the availability of adequate capacities and resources among notified bodies. ### 6. the commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts to amend paragraphs 1 and 2 in order to subject high-risk ai systems referred to in points 2 to 8 of annex iii to the conformity assessment procedure referred to in annex vii or parts thereof. the commission shall adopt such delegated acts taking into account the effectiveness of the conformity assessment procedure based on internal control referred to in annex vi in preventing or minimizing the risks to health , safety , the environment and protection of fundamental rights posed by such systems as well as the availability of adequate capacities and resources among notified bodies.


### 6. the commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts to amend paragraphs 1 and 2 in order to subject high-risk ai systems referred to in points 2 to 8 of annex iii to the conformity assessment procedure referred to in annex vii or parts thereof. the commission shall adopt such delegated acts taking into account the effectiveness of the conformity assessment procedure based on internal control referred to in annex vi in preventing or minimizing the risks to health and safety and protection of fundamental rights posed by such systems as well as the availability of adequate capacities and resources among notified bodies. ### deleted


### 1. ai regulatory sandboxes established by one or more member states competent authorities or the european data protection supervisor shall provide a controlled environment that facilitates the development , testing and validation of innovative ai systems for a limited time before their placement on the market or putting into service pursuant to a specific plan. this shall take place under the direct supervision and guidance by the competent authorities with a view to ensuring compliance with the requirements of this regulation and , where relevant , other union and member states legislation supervised within the sandbox. ### 1. ai regulatory sandboxes established by one or more member states competent authorities or the european data protection supervisor shall provide a controlled environment that facilitates the development , testing and validation of innovative ai systems for a limited time before their placement on the market or putting into service pursuant to a specific plan. this shall take place under the direct supervision and guidance by the competent authorities with a view to identifying risks in particular to health , safety , and fundamental rights , ensuring compliance with the requirements of this regulation and , where relevant , other union and member states legislation supervised within the sandbox.


### 3. the ai regulatory sandboxes shall not affect the supervisory and corrective powers of the competent authorities. any significant risks to health and safety and fundamental rights identified during the development and testing of such systems shall result in immediate mitigation and , failing that , in the suspension of the development and testing process until such mitigation takes place. ### 3. the ai regulatory sandboxes shall not affect the supervisory and corrective powers of the competent authorities. any significant risks to health , safety , the environment or fundamental rights identified during the development and testing of such systems shall result in immediate mitigation and , failing that , in the suspension of the development and testing process until such mitigation takes place.


### 3. the ai regulatory sandboxes shall not affect the supervisory and corrective powers of the competent authorities. any significant risks to health and safety and fundamental rights identified during the development and testing of such systems shall result in immediate mitigation and , failing that , in the suspension of the development and testing process until such mitigation takes place. ### 3. the ai regulatory sandboxes shall not affect the supervisory and corrective powers of the competent authorities. any significant risks to climate mitigation , the environment , health and safety and fundamental rights identified during the development and testing of such systems shall result in immediate mitigation and , failing that , in the suspension of the development and testing process until such mitigation takes place.


### 3. the ai regulatory sandboxes shall not affect the supervisory and corrective powers of the competent authorities. any significant risks to health and safety and fundamental rights identified during the development and testing of such systems shall result in immediate mitigation and , failing that , in the suspension of the development and testing process until such mitigation takes place. ### 3. the ai regulatory sandboxes shall not affect the supervisory and corrective powers of the competent authorities and can only be implemented in a specified area with approval of the regional or local authorities. any significant risks to environment , health and safety and fundamental rights identified during the development and testing of such systems shall result in immediate mitigation and , failing that , in the suspension of the development and testing process until such mitigation takes place.


### 5. member states’ competent authorities that have established ai regulatory sandboxes shall coordinate their activities and cooperate within the framework of the european artificial intelligence board. they shall submit annual reports to the board and the commission on the results from the implementation of those scheme , including good practices , lessons learnt and recommendations on their setup and , where relevant , on the application of this regulation and other union legislation supervised within the sandbox. ### 5. member states’ competent authorities that have established ai regulatory sandboxes shall coordinate their activities and cooperate within the framework of the european artificial intelligence board. they shall submit annual reports to the board and the commission on the results from the implementation of those scheme , including best practices , computational energy use and efficiency , lessons learnt and recommendations on their setup and , where relevant , on the application of this regulation and other union legislation supervised within the sandbox.


### (iii) a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment; ### (iii) a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment , with the prerequisite that the costs of developing the ai system shall not exceed the benefit of developing it for the purpose of protecting the environment;


### (iii) a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment; ### (iii) a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment , meaning the environmental costs of the development and use of the ai system shall not exceed the benefit of developing it for the purpose of protecting the environment;


### (iii) a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment; ### (iii) a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment , meaning the costs of developing the ai system shall not exceed the benefit of developing it for the purpose of protecting the environment;


### 55 measures for small-scale providers and users ### 55 measures for small-scale providers and users and start-ups


### measures for small-scale providers and users ### measures for small-scale providers and deployers


### provide small-scale providers and start-ups with priority access to the ai regulatory sandboxes to the extent that they fulfil the eligibility conditions; ### provide small-scale providers and users and start-ups with priority access to the ai regulatory sandboxes to the extent that they fulfil the eligibility conditions;


### organise specific awareness raising activities about the application of this regulation tailored to the needs of the small-scale providers and users; ### organise specific awareness raising activities about the application of this regulation tailored to the needs of the small-scale providers and users and start-ups;


### where appropriate , establish a dedicated channel for communication with small-scale providers and user and other innovators to provide guidance and respond to queries about the implementation of this regulation. ### where appropriate , establish a dedicated channel for communication with small-scale providers and user , start-ups and other innovators to provide guidance and respond to queries about the implementation of this regulation.


### 1. the board shall be composed of the national supervisory authorities , who shall be represented by the head or equivalent high-level official of that authority , and the european data protection supervisor. other national authorities may be invited to the meetings , where the issues discussed are of relevance for them. ### 1. the board shall be composed of the national supervisory authorities , who shall be represented by the head of that authority , and the european data protection supervisor , the chair of the european data protection board , the director of the fundamental rights agency , the executive director of the european union agency for cybersecurity or their respective representatives. other national authorities or union agencies and bodies may be invited to the meetings , where the issues discussed are of relevance for them.


### 1. the board shall be composed of the national supervisory authorities , who shall be represented by the head or equivalent high-level official of that authority , and the european data protection supervisor. other national authorities may be invited to the meetings , where the issues discussed are of relevance for them. ### 1. the board shall be composed of the national supervisory authorities , who shall be represented by the head or equivalent high-level official of that authority , and the european data protection supervisor. other national authorities shall be invited to the meetings , where the issues discussed are of relevance for them. a sustainable ai taskforce comprised of independent digital sustainability experts shall be established within the board to ensure the systemic consideration and inclusion of the eu’s environmental imperatives within the regulation of ai.


### 1. the board shall be composed of the national supervisory authorities , who shall be represented by the head or equivalent high-level official of that authority , and the european data protection supervisor. other national authorities may be invited to the meetings , where the issues discussed are of relevance for them. ### 1. the board shall be composed of the national supervisory authorities , who shall be represented by the head or equivalent high-level official of that authority , and the european data protection supervisor. other national authorities shall be invited to the meetings , where the issues discussed are of relevance for them. a sustainable ai taskforce composed of independent digital sustainability experts shall be established within the board to ensure the due consideration and inclusion of the union's environmental priorities within the regulatory framework of ai systems.


### 1. the board shall be composed of the national supervisory authorities , who shall be represented by the head or equivalent high-level official of that authority , and the european data protection supervisor. other national authorities may be invited to the meetings , where the issues discussed are of relevance for them. ### 1. the board shall be composed of the national supervisory authorities , who shall be represented by the head or equivalent high-level official of that authority , and the european data protection supervisor. other national authorities may be invited to the meetings , where the issues discussed are of relevance for them. the board composition shall be gender balanced.


### 3. the board shall be chaired by the commission. the commission shall convene the meetings and prepare the agenda in accordance with the tasks of the board pursuant to this regulation and with its rules of procedure. the commission shall provide administrative and analytical support for the activities of the board pursuant to this regulation. ### 3. the board shall elect a chair and two deputy chairs from among its members. their term of office shall be five years and be renewable once. . the chair shall convene the meetings and prepare the agenda in accordance with the tasks of the board pursuant to this regulation and with its rules of procedure.


### 4. the board may invite external experts and observers to attend its meetings and may hold exchanges with interested third parties to inform its activities to an appropriate extent. to that end the commission may facilitate exchanges between the board and other union bodies , offices , agencies and advisory groups. ### 4. the board may invite external experts and observers to attend its meetings and may hold exchanges with interested third parties to inform its activities to an appropriate extent. to that end the commission may facilitate exchanges between the board and other union bodies , offices , agencies and advisory groups. the board shall make sure to actively reach out to and hear representatives from groups , which are more vulnerable to discriminatory effects posed by ai , such as people with disabilities.


### 4. the board may invite external experts and observers to attend its meetings and may hold exchanges with interested third parties to inform its activities to an appropriate extent. to that end the commission may facilitate exchanges between the board and other union bodies , offices , agencies and advisory groups. ### 4. the board may invite external experts and observers to attend its meetings and may hold exchanges with interested third parties to inform its activities to an appropriate extent. to that end the chair shall facilitate exchanges between the board and other union bodies , offices , agencies and advisory groups. the board shall ensure a balanced representation of stakeholders from academia , research , industry and civil society when it invites external experts and observers , and actively stimulate participation from underrepresented categories.


### 4. the board may invite external experts and observers to attend its meetings and may hold exchanges with interested third parties to inform its activities to an appropriate extent. to that end the commission may facilitate exchanges between the board and other union bodies , offices , agencies and advisory groups. ### 4. the board may invite external experts , ethicists , civil society organisations including consumer associations , human rights groups and intergovernmental organisations and observers to attend its meetings and may hold exchanges with interested third parties to inform its activities to an appropriate extent. to that end the commission may facilitate exchanges between the board and other union bodies , offices , agencies and advisory groups.


### 4. the board may invite external experts and observers to attend its meetings and may hold exchanges with interested third parties to inform its activities to an appropriate extent. to that end the commission may facilitate exchanges between the board and other union bodies , offices , agencies and advisory groups. ### 4. the board may invite external experts and observers to attend its meetings and may hold exchanges with interested third parties to inform its activities to an appropriate extent. to that end the commission may facilitate exchanges between the board and other union bodies , offices , agencies and advisory groups. the board shall ensure a balanced representation of stakeholders from academia , research , and industry when it invites external experts and observers , and actively stimulate participation from underrepresented categories.


### 4. member states shall ensure that national competent authorities are provided with adequate financial and human resources to fulfil their tasks under this regulation. in particular , national competent authorities shall have a sufficient number of personnel permanently available whose competences and expertise shall include an in-depth understanding of artificial intelligence technologies , data and data computing , fundamental rights , health and safety risks and knowledge of existing standards and legal requirements. ### 4. member states shall ensure that national competent authorities are provided with adequate financial and human resources to fulfil their tasks under this regulation. in particular , national competent authorities shall have a sufficient number of personnel permanently available whose competences and expertise shall include an in-depth understanding of artificial intelligence technologies , data and data computing , fundamental rights , health , safety and environmental risks and knowledge of existing standards and legal requirements.


### 4. member states shall ensure that national competent authorities are provided with adequate financial and human resources to fulfil their tasks under this regulation. in particular , national competent authorities shall have a sufficient number of personnel permanently available whose competences and expertise shall include an in-depth understanding of artificial intelligence technologies , data and data computing , fundamental rights , health and safety risks and knowledge of existing standards and legal requirements. ### 4. member states shall ensure that national competent authorities are provided with adequate financial and human and technical resources to fulfil their tasks effectively under this regulation. in particular , national competent authorities shall have a sufficient number of personnel permanently available whose competences and expertise shall include an in-depth understanding of artificial intelligence technologies , data and data computing , fundamental rights , competition law , health and safety risks and knowledge of existing standards and other legal requirements.


### 4. member states shall ensure that national competent authorities are provided with adequate financial and human resources to fulfil their tasks under this regulation. in particular , national competent authorities shall have a sufficient number of personnel permanently available whose competences and expertise shall include an in-depth understanding of artificial intelligence technologies , data and data computing , fundamental rights , health and safety risks and knowledge of existing standards and legal requirements. ### 4. member states shall ensure that national competent authorities are provided with adequate financial and human resources to fulfil their tasks under this regulation. in particular , national competent authorities shall have a sufficient number of personnel permanently available whose competences and expertise shall include an in-depth understanding of artificial intelligence technologies , data protection and data computing , fundamental rights , health and safety risks and knowledge of existing standards and legal requirements.


### 7. national competent authorities may provide guidance and advice on the implementation of this regulation , including to small-scale providers. whenever national competent authorities intend to provide guidance and advice with regard to an ai system in areas covered by other union legislation , the competent national authorities under that union legislation shall be consulted , as appropriate. member states may also establish one central contact point for communication with operators. ### 7. the board may provide guidance and advice on the implementation of this regulation , including to small-scale providers. whenever the board intends to provide guidance and advice with regard to an ai system in areas covered by other union legislation , the competent national authorities under that union legislation shall be consulted , as appropriate. member states may also establish one central contact point for communication with operators.


### 3. information contained in the eu database shall be accessible to the public. ### 3. information contained in the eu database shall be freely available and accessible to the public , comply with the accessibility requirements of annex i to directive 2019/882 , and be user-friendly , navigable , and machine-readable , containing structured digital data based on a standardised protocol.


### 2. the post-market monitoring system shall actively and systematically collect , document and analyse relevant data provided by users or collected through other sources on the performance of high-risk ai systems throughout their lifetime , and allow the provider to evaluate the continuous compliance of ai systems with the requirements set out in title iii , chapter 2. ### 2. the post-market monitoring system shall actively and systematically collect , document and analyse relevant data provided by deployers or collected through other sources on the performance of high-risk ai systems throughout their lifetime , and allow the provider to evaluate the continuous compliance of ai systems with the requirements set out in title iii , chapter 2. post-market monitoring shall include continuous analysis of the ai environment , including other devices , software , and other ai systems that interact with the ai system.


### 1. access to data and documentation in the context of their activities , the market surveillance authorities shall be granted full access to the training , validation and testing datasets used by the provider , including through application programming interfaces (‘api’) or other appropriate technical means and tools enabling remote access. ### 1. in the context of their activities , the market surveillance authorities shall be granted full access to the comprehensive training , validation and testing datasets used by the provider , including through application programming interfaces (‘api’) or other appropriate technical means and tools enabling remote access.


### 2. where necessary to assess the conformity of the high-risk ai system with the requirements set out in title iii , chapter 2 and upon a reasoned request , the market surveillance authorities shall be granted access to the source code of the ai system. ### 2. where necessary to assess the conformity of the high-risk ai system with the requirements set out in title iii , chapter 2 , after all other reasonable ways to verify conformity have been exhausted and have proven to be insufficient , and upon a reasoned request , the market surveillance authorities or , where applicable , the commission , shall be granted access to the source code of the ai system. such access shall be subject to existing union law on the protection of intellectual property and trade secrets.


### 2. where necessary to assess the conformity of the high-risk ai system with the requirements set out in title iii , chapter 2 and upon a reasoned request , the market surveillance authorities shall be granted access to the source code of the ai system. ### 2. where necessary to assess the conformity of the high-risk ai system with the requirements set out in title iii , chapter 2 and upon request , the market surveillance authorities shall be granted access to the source code of the ai system.


### 1. ai systems presenting a risk shall be understood as a product presenting a risk defined in article 3 , point 19 of regulation (eu) 2019/1020 insofar as risks to the health or safety or to the protection of fundamental rights of persons are concerned. ### 1. ai systems presenting a risk shall be understood as a product presenting a risk defined in article 3 , point 19 of regulation (eu) 2019/1020 insofar as risks to health , safety or the environment , or to the protection of fundamental rights of persons are concerned.


### 1. ai systems presenting a risk shall be understood as a product presenting a risk defined in article 3 , point 19 of regulation (eu) 2019/1020 insofar as risks to the health or safety or to the protection of fundamental rights of persons are concerned. ### 1. ai systems presenting a risk shall be understood as a product presenting a risk defined in article 3 , point 19 of regulation (eu) 2019/1020 insofar as risks to the health or safety , the protection of consumers and the environment or where the protection of fundamental rights of persons are concerned.


### 1. where , having performed an evaluation under article 65 , the market surveillance authority of a member state finds that although an ai system is in compliance with this regulation , it presents a risk to the health or safety of persons , to the compliance with obligations under union or national law intended to protect fundamental rights or to other aspects of public interest protection , it shall require the relevant operator to take all appropriate measures to ensure that the ai system concerned , when placed on the market or put into service , no longer presents that risk , to withdraw the ai system from the market or to recall it within a reasonable period , commensurate with the nature of the risk , as it may prescribe. ### 1. where , having performed an evaluation under article 65 , the market surveillance authority of a member state finds that although an ai system is in compliance with this regulation , it presents a risk to the health or safety of persons , to the environment , to the compliance with obligations under union or national law intended to protect fundamental rights or to other aspects of public interest protection , it shall require the relevant operator to take all appropriate measures to ensure that the ai system concerned , when placed on the market or put into service , no longer presents that risk , to withdraw the ai system from the market or to recall it within a reasonable period , commensurate with the nature of the risk , as it may prescribe.


### 1. where , having performed an evaluation under article 65 , the market surveillance authority of a member state finds that although an ai system is in compliance with this regulation , it presents a risk to the health or safety of persons , to the compliance with obligations under union or national law intended to protect fundamental rights or to other aspects of public interest protection , it shall require the relevant operator to take all appropriate measures to ensure that the ai system concerned , when placed on the market or put into service , no longer presents that risk , to withdraw the ai system from the market or to recall it within a reasonable period , commensurate with the nature of the risk , as it may prescribe. ### 1. where , having performed an evaluation under article 65 , the market surveillance authority of a member state finds that although an ai system is in compliance with this regulation , it presents a risk to the health or safety of persons or to the compliance with obligations under union or national law intended to protect fundamental rights , it shall require the relevant operator to take all appropriate measures to ensure that the ai system concerned , when placed on the market or put into service , no longer presents that risk


### 1. where , having performed an evaluation under article 65 , the market surveillance authority of a member state finds that although an ai system is in compliance with this regulation , it presents a risk to the health or safety of persons , to the compliance with obligations under union or national law intended to protect fundamental rights or to other aspects of public interest protection , it shall require the relevant operator to take all appropriate measures to ensure that the ai system concerned , when placed on the market or put into service , no longer presents that risk , to withdraw the ai system from the market or to recall it within a reasonable period , commensurate with the nature of the risk , as it may prescribe. ### 1. where , having performed an evaluation under article 65 , the market surveillance authority of a member state finds that although an ai system is in compliance with this regulation , it presents a risk to the environment , the health or safety of persons , to the compliance with obligations under union or national law intended to protect fundamental rights or to other aspects of public interest protection , it shall require the relevant operator to take all appropriate measures to ensure that the ai system concerned , when placed on the market or put into service , no longer presents that risk , to withdraw the ai system from the market or to recall it within a reasonable period , commensurate with the nature of the risk , as it may prescribe.


### 3. codes of conduct may be drawn up by individual providers of ai systems or by organisations representing them or by both , including with the involvement of users and any interested stakeholders and their representative organisations. codes of conduct may cover one or more ai systems taking into account the similarity of the intended purpose of the relevant systems. ### 3. codes of conduct may be drawn up by individual providers of ai systems or by organisations representing them or by both , including with the involvement of users and any interested stakeholders , including scientific researchers , and their representative organisations. codes of conduct may cover one or more ai systems taking into account the similarity of the intended purpose of the relevant systems.


### 1. national competent authorities and notified bodies involved in the application of this regulation shall respect the confidentiality of information and data obtained in carrying out their tasks and activities in such a manner as to protect , in particular: ### 1. the commission , the ai office , national competent authorities and notified bodies involved in the application of this regulation shall respect the confidentiality of information and data obtained in carrying out their tasks and activities in such a manner as to protect , in particular:


### 1. the commission shall assess the need for amendment of the list in annex iii once a year following the entry into force of this regulation. ### 1. the commission shall assess the need for amendment of the list in annex iii , including the extension of existing area headings or addition of new area headings , once a year following the entry into force of this regulation.


### ai systems intended to be used for the ‘real-time’ and ‘post’ remote biometric identification of natural persons; ### deleted


### ai systems intended to be used as safety components in the management and operation of road traffic and the supply of water , gas , heating and electricity. ### ai systems that may be or are intended to be used as safety components in the management and operation of road traffic and the supply of water , gas , heating and electricity and entities falling under [directive xxxx/xxx/eu (‘nis 2 directive’)].


### ai systems intended to be used for recruitment or selection of natural persons , notably for advertising vacancies , screening or filtering applications , evaluating candidates in the course of interviews or tests; ### ai systems that may be or are intended intended to be used for recruitment or selection of natural persons , notably for advertising vacancies , screening or filtering applications , evaluating candidates in the course of interviews or tests;


### ai systems intended to be used for recruitment or selection of natural persons , notably for advertising vacancies , screening or filtering applications , evaluating candidates in the course of interviews or tests; ### ai systems intended to be used in recruitment for advertising vacancies , screening or filtering applications , or evaluating candidates in the course of interviews or tests;


### ai intended to be used for making decisions on promotion and termination of work-related contractual relationships , for task allocation and for monitoring and evaluating performance and behavior of persons in such relationships. ### ai that may be or are intended to be used to assist decision-making affecting the initiation , establishment , implementation and termination of an employment relationship , including ai systems intended to support collective legal and regulatory matters , particularly work-related relationships , for task allocation and for monitoring , measuring and evaluating performance and behavior of persons in such relationships.


### ai intended to be used for making decisions on promotion and termination of work-related contractual relationships , for task allocation and for monitoring and evaluating performance and behavior of persons in such relationships. ### ai systems intended to be used for making decisions or to assist in making decisions on promotion and termination of work-related contractual relationships; for personalized task allocation based on biometrics , biometrics-based , or personal data; and for monitoring and evaluating performance and behaviour of natural persons in such relationships.


### (2) artificial intelligence systems (ai systems) can be easily deployed in multiple sectors of the economy and society , including cross border , and circulate throughout the union. certain member states have already explored the adoption of national rules to ensure that artificial intelligence is safe and is developed and used in compliance with fundamental rights obligations. differing national rules may lead to fragmentation of the internal market and decrease legal certainty for operators that develop or use ai systems. a consistent and high level of protection throughout the union should therefore be ensured , while divergences hampering the free circulation of ai systems and related products and services within the internal market should be prevented , by laying down uniform obligations for operators and guaranteeing the uniform protection of overriding reasons of public interest and of rights of persons throughout the internal market based on article 114 of the treaty on the functioning of the european union (tfeu). to the extent that this regulation contains specific rules on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data concerning restrictions of the use of ai systems for ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement , it is appropriate to base this regulation , in as far as those specific rules are concerned , on article 16 of the tfeu. in light of those specific rules and the recourse to article 16 tfeu , it is appropriate to consult the european data protection board. ### (2) artificial intelligence systems (ai systems) can be easily deployed in multiple sectors of the economy and society , including cross border , and circulate throughout the union. certain member states have already explored the adoption of national rules to ensure that artificial intelligence is safe and is developed and used in compliance with fundamental rights obligations. a consistent and high level of protection throughout the union should therefore be ensured , while divergences hampering the free circulation of ai systems and related products and services within the internal market should be prevented , by laying down uniform obligations for operators and guaranteeing the uniform protection of overriding reasons of public interest and of rights of persons throughout the internal market based on article 114 of the treaty on the functioning of the european union (tfeu). to the extent that this regulation contains specific rules on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data concerning restrictions of the use of ai systems biometric identification in publicly accessible spaces , it is appropriate to base this regulation , in as far as those specific rules are concerned , on article 16 of the tfeu. in light of those specific rules and the recourse to article 16 tfeu , it is appropriate to consult the european data protection board.


### (3) artificial intelligence is a fast evolving family of technologies that can contribute to a wide array of economic and societal benefits across the entire spectrum of industries and social activities. by improving prediction , optimising operations and resource allocation , and personalising digital solutions available for individuals and organisations , the use of artificial intelligence can provide key competitive advantages to companies and support socially and environmentally beneficial outcomes , for example in healthcare , farming , education and training , infrastructure management , energy , transport and logistics , public services , security , justice , resource and energy efficiency , and climate change mitigation and adaptation. ### (3) artificial intelligence is a fast evolving family of technologies that can contribute to a wide array of economic and societal benefits across the entire spectrum of industries and social activities. by improving prediction , optimising operations and resource allocation , and personalising digital solutions available for individuals and organisations , the use of artificial intelligence can provide key competitive advantages to companies and support socially and environmentally beneficial outcomes , for example in food safety , by reducing the use of pesticides , the conservation and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems , access to and provision of medicines and healthcare , carbon farming , education and training , infrastructure management , energy , transport and logistics , public services , security , justice , resource and energy efficiency , and climate change mitigation and adaptation.


### (4) at the same time , depending on the circumstances regarding its specific application and use , artificial intelligence may generate risks and cause harm to public interests and rights that are protected by union law. such harm might be material or immaterial. ### (4) at the same time , depending on the circumstances regarding its specific application and use , artificial intelligence may generate risks and cause harm to public interests and rights that are protected by union law , whether individual , societal , environmental , economic , or to the rule of law and democracy. such harm might be material or immaterial. harm should be understood as injury or damage to the life , health , physical integrity and the property of a natural or legal person , economic harm to individuals , damage to their environment , security and other aspects defined in the scope of new approach directives , complemented by collective harms such as harm to society , the democratic process and the environment , or going against core ethical principles. immaterial harms should be understood as meaning harm as a result of which the affected person suffers considerable detriment , an objective and demonstrable impairment of his or her personal interests and an economic loss calculated having regard , for example , to annual average figures of past revenues and other relevant circumstances. such immaterial harm can therefore consist of psychological harm , reputational harm or change in legal status. harm can be caused (i) by single events and (ii) through exposure over time to harmful algorithmic practices , as well as (iii) through action distributed among a number of actors where the entity causing the harm is not necessarily that which uses the ai or (iv) through uses of ai which are different than intended for the given system.


### (4) at the same time , depending on the circumstances regarding its specific application and use , artificial intelligence may generate risks and cause harm to public interests and rights that are protected by union law. such harm might be material or immaterial. ### (4) at the same time , depending on the circumstances regarding its specific application and use , artificial intelligence may generate risks and cause harm to public interests and citizens' rights that are protected by union law. such harm might be material or immaterial , direct or indirect.


### (4) at the same time , depending on the circumstances regarding its specific application and use , artificial intelligence may generate risks and cause harm to public interests and rights that are protected by union law. such harm might be material or immaterial. ### (4) at the same time , depending on the circumstances regarding its specific application and use , artificial intelligence may generate risks and cause harm to public interests and rights that are protected by union law , whether individual , societal or environmental. such harm might be material or immaterial. harm should be understood as injury or damage to the life , health , physical integrity and the property of a natural or legal person , economic harm to individuals , damage to their environment , security and other aspects defined in the scope of new approach directives , complemented by collective harms such as harm to society , the democratic process and the environment , or going against core ethical principles. immaterial harms should be understood as meaning harm as a result of which the affected person suffers considerable detriment , an objective and demonstrable impairment of his or her personal interests and an economic loss calculated having regard , for example , to annual average figures of past revenues and other relevant circumstances. such immaterial harm can therefore consist of psychological harm , reputational harm or change in legal status. harm can be caused (i) by single events and (ii) through exposure over time to harmful algorithmic practices , as well as (iii) through action distributed among a number of actors where the entity causing the harm is not necessarily that which uses the ai or (iv) through uses of ai which are different than intended for the given system.


### (8) the notion of remote biometric identification system as used in this regulation should be defined functionally , as an ai system intended for the identification of natural persons at a distance through the comparison of a person’s biometric data with the biometric data contained in a reference database , and without prior knowledge whether the targeted person will be present and can be identified , irrespectively of the particular technology , processes or types of biometric data used. considering their different characteristics and manners in which they are used , as well as the different risks involved , a distinction should be made between ‘real-time’ and ‘post’ remote biometric identification systems. in the case of ‘real-time’ systems , the capturing of the biometric data , the comparison and the identification occur all instantaneously , near-instantaneously or in any event without a significant delay. in this regard , there should be no scope for circumventing the rules of this regulation on the ‘real-time’ use of the ai systems in question by providing for minor delays. ‘real-time’ systems involve the use of ‘live’ or ‘near-‘live’ material , such as video footage , generated by a camera or other device with similar functionality. in the case of ‘post’ systems , in contrast , the biometric data have already been captured and the comparison and identification occur only after a significant delay. this involves material , such as pictures or video footage generated by closed circuit television cameras or private devices , which has been generated before the use of the system in respect of the natural persons concerned. ### (8) the notion of remote biometric identification system as used in this regulation should be defined functionally , as an ai system intended for the identification of natural persons at a distance through the comparison of a person’s biometric data with the biometric data contained in a reference database , and without prior knowledge whether the targeted person will be present and can be identified , irrespectively of the particular technology , processes or types of biometric data used. because remote biometric identification relates to how a system is designed and installed , and not solely to whether or not data subjects have consented , this definition applies even when warning notices are placed in the location that is under the surveillance of the remote biometric identification system , and is not de facto annulled by pre-enrolment.


### (8) the notion of remote biometric identification system as used in this regulation should be defined functionally , as an ai system intended for the identification of natural persons at a distance through the comparison of a person’s biometric data with the biometric data contained in a reference database , and without prior knowledge whether the targeted person will be present and can be identified , irrespectively of the particular technology , processes or types of biometric data used. considering their different characteristics and manners in which they are used , as well as the different risks involved , a distinction should be made between ‘real-time’ and ‘post’ remote biometric identification systems. in the case of ‘real-time’ systems , the capturing of the biometric data , the comparison and the identification occur all instantaneously , near-instantaneously or in any event without a significant delay. in this regard , there should be no scope for circumventing the rules of this regulation on the ‘real-time’ use of the ai systems in question by providing for minor delays. ‘real-time’ systems involve the use of ‘live’ or ‘near-‘live’ material , such as video footage , generated by a camera or other device with similar functionality. in the case of ‘post’ systems , in contrast , the biometric data have already been captured and the comparison and identification occur only after a significant delay. this involves material , such as pictures or video footage generated by closed circuit television cameras or private devices , which has been generated before the use of the system in respect of the natural persons concerned. ### (8) the notion of remote biometric identification system as used in this regulation should be defined functionally , as an ai system intended for the identification of natural persons at a distance through the comparison of a person’s biometric data with the biometric data contained in a reference database , and without prior knowledge whether the targeted person will be present and can be identified , irrespectively of the particular technology , processes or types of biometric data used. considering their different characteristics and manners in which they are used , as well as the different risks involved , a distinction should be made between ‘real-time’ and ‘post’ remote biometric identification systems. in the case of ‘real-time’ systems , the capturing of the biometric data , the comparison and the identification occur all instantaneously , near-instantaneously or in any event without a significant delay. in this regard , there should be no scope for circumventing the rules of this regulation on the ‘real-time’ use of the ai systems in question by providing for minor delays. ‘real-time’ systems involve the use of ‘live’ or ‘near-‘live’ material , such as video footage , generated by a camera or other device with similar functionality. in the case of ‘post’ systems , in contrast , the biometric data have already been captured and the comparison and identification occur only after a significant delay. this involves material , such as pictures or video footage generated by closed circuit television cameras or private devices , which has been generated before the use of the system in respect of the natural persons concerned. the notion of remote biometric identification system shall not include authentification and verification systems whose purpose is to confirm , based on prior consent , that a specific natural person is the person he or she claims to be or to confirm the identity of a natural person for the purpose of having access to a service , a device or premises.


### (8) the notion of remote biometric identification system as used in this regulation should be defined functionally , as an ai system intended for the identification of natural persons at a distance through the comparison of a person’s biometric data with the biometric data contained in a reference database , and without prior knowledge whether the targeted person will be present and can be identified , irrespectively of the particular technology , processes or types of biometric data used. considering their different characteristics and manners in which they are used , as well as the different risks involved , a distinction should be made between ‘real-time’ and ‘post’ remote biometric identification systems. in the case of ‘real-time’ systems , the capturing of the biometric data , the comparison and the identification occur all instantaneously , near-instantaneously or in any event without a significant delay. in this regard , there should be no scope for circumventing the rules of this regulation on the ‘real-time’ use of the ai systems in question by providing for minor delays. ‘real-time’ systems involve the use of ‘live’ or ‘near-‘live’ material , such as video footage , generated by a camera or other device with similar functionality. in the case of ‘post’ systems , in contrast , the biometric data have already been captured and the comparison and identification occur only after a significant delay. this involves material , such as pictures or video footage generated by closed circuit television cameras or private devices , which has been generated before the use of the system in respect of the natural persons concerned. ### (8) the notion of remote biometric identification system as used in this regulation should be defined functionally , as an ai system intended for the identification of natural persons at a distance through the comparison of a person’s biometric data with the biometric data contained in a reference database , irrespectively of the particular technology , processes or types of biometric data used. the notion of ‘at a distance’ in remote biometric identification (rbi) means the use of systems as described in article 3(36) , at a distance great enough that the system has the capacity to scan multiple persons in its field of view (or the equivalent generalised scanning of online / virtual spaces) , which would mean that the identification could happen without one or more of the data subjects’ knowledge. because rbi relates to how a system is designed and installed , and not solely to whether or not data subjects have consented , this definition applies even when warning notices are placed in the location that is under the surveillance of the rbi system , and is not de facto annulled by pre-enrolment.


### (9) for the purposes of this regulation the notion of publicly accessible space should be understood as referring to any physical place that is accessible to the public , irrespective of whether the place in question is privately or publicly owned. therefore , the notion does not cover places that are private in nature and normally not freely accessible for third parties , including law enforcement authorities , unless those parties have been specifically invited or authorised , such as homes , private clubs , offices , warehouses and factories. online spaces are not covered either , as they are not physical spaces. however , the mere fact that certain conditions for accessing a particular space may apply , such as admission tickets or age restrictions , does not mean that the space is not publicly accessible within the meaning of this regulation. consequently , in addition to public spaces such as streets , relevant parts of government buildings and most transport infrastructure , spaces such as cinemas , theatres , shops and shopping centres are normally also publicly accessible. whether a given space is accessible to the public should however be determined on a case-by-case basis , having regard to the specificities of the individual situation at hand. ### (9) for the purposes of this regulation the notion of publicly accessible physical or virtual space should be understood as referring to any physical or virtual place that is accessible to the public , on a temporary or permanent basis , irrespective of whether the place in question is privately or publicly owned. therefore , the notion covers places that are both private in nature , used for private purposes only , accessed completely voluntarily and normally not freely accessible for third parties , including law enforcement authorities , unless those parties have been specifically invited or authorised , such as homes and private clubs. however , the mere fact that certain conditions for accessing a particular space may apply , such as admission tickets or age restrictions , does not mean that the space is not publicly accessible within the meaning of this regulation. consequently , in addition to public spaces such as streets , relevant parts of government buildings and most transport infrastructure , spaces such as cinemas , theatres , sports grounds , virtual gaming environments , schools , universities , hospitals , amusement parks , festivals , shops and shopping centres , offices , warehouses and factories are normally also publicly accessible. whether a given space is accessible to the public should however be determined on a case-by-case basis , having regard to the specificities of the individual situation at hand.


### (15) aside from the many beneficial uses of artificial intelligence , that technology can also be misused and provide novel and powerful tools for manipulative , exploitative and social control practices. such practices are particularly harmful and should be prohibited because they contradict union values of respect for human dignity , freedom , equality , democracy and the rule of law and union fundamental rights , including the right to non-discrimination , data protection and privacy and the rights of the child. ### (15) ai systems can also be misused and provide novel and powerful tools for manipulative , exploitative and social control practices. such practices are particularly harmful and should be prohibited because they contradict union values of respect for human dignity , freedom , equality , democracy and the rule of law and union fundamental rights , including the right to non-discrimination , data protection and privacy and the rights of the child. all uses of ai systems which interfere with the essence of the fundamental rights of individuals should in any case be prohibited. the prohibitions listed in this regulation should apply notwithstanding existing union law and do not provide a new legal basis for the development placing on the market , deployment or use of ai systems. to keep up with rapid technological development and to ensure future-proof regulation , the commission should keep the list of prohibited and high-risk ai systems under constant review.


### (16) the placing on the market , putting into service or use of certain ai systems intended to distort human behaviour , whereby physical or psychological harms are likely to occur , should be forbidden. such ai systems deploy subliminal components individuals cannot perceive or exploit vulnerabilities of children and people due to their age , physical or mental incapacities. they do so with the intention to materially distort the behaviour of a person and in a manner that causes or is likely to cause harm to that or another person. the intention may not be presumed if the distortion of human behaviour results from factors external to the ai system which are outside of the control of the provider or the user. research for legitimate purposes in relation to such ai systems should not be stifled by the prohibition , if such research does not amount to use of the ai system in human-machine relations that exposes natural persons to harm and such research is carried out in accordance with recognised ethical standards for scientific research. ### (16) the placing on the market , putting into service or use of certain ai systems with the effect or likely effect of distorting human behaviour , whereby physical , economic or psychological harms to individuals or society are likely to occur , should be forbidden. this includes ai systems that deploy subliminal components that individuals may not be able to perceive or understand , or exploit vulnerabilities of individuals. they materially distort the behaviour of a person , including in a manner that causes or is likely to cause physical , psychological or economic harm to that or another person , or to society , or lead them to make decisions they would not otherwise have taken. manipulation may not be presumed if the distortion of human behaviour clearly results from factors external to the ai system which are outside of the control of the provider or the user and are not reasonably foreseeable at or during the deployment of the ai system. research for legitimate purposes in relation to such ai systems should not be unduly limited by the prohibition , if such research does not amount to use of the ai system in non-supervised human-machine relations that exposes natural persons to harm and such research is carried out in accordance with recognised ethical standards for scientific research. if necessary , further flexibilities in order to foster research , and thereby european innovation capacities , should be introduced by member states under controlled circumstances only and with all relevant safeguards to protect health and safety , fundamental rights , environment , society , rule of law and democracy.


### (16) the placing on the market , putting into service or use of certain ai systems intended to distort human behaviour , whereby physical or psychological harms are likely to occur , should be forbidden. such ai systems deploy subliminal components individuals cannot perceive or exploit vulnerabilities of children and people due to their age , physical or mental incapacities. they do so with the intention to materially distort the behaviour of a person and in a manner that causes or is likely to cause harm to that or another person. the intention may not be presumed if the distortion of human behaviour results from factors external to the ai system which are outside of the control of the provider or the user. research for legitimate purposes in relation to such ai systems should not be stifled by the prohibition , if such research does not amount to use of the ai system in human-machine relations that exposes natural persons to harm and such research is carried out in accordance with recognised ethical standards for scientific research. ### (16) the placing on the market , putting into service or use of certain ai systems intended to distort human behaviour , whereby physical or psychological harms are likely to occur , should be forbidden. in particular , ai systems that deploy subliminal components that natural persons cannot perceive , that exploit the vulnerabilities of any groups ,or that use purposefully manipulative techniques with the intention to materially distort the behaviour of a person and in a manner that causes or is likely to cause harm to that or another person or to their rights or to the values of the union should be prohibited. the intention may not be presumed if the distortion of human behaviour results from factors external to the ai system which are outside of the control of the provider or the user. research for legitimate purposes in relation to such ai systems should not be stifled by the prohibition , if such research does not amount to use of the ai system inhuman-machine relations that exposes natural persons to harm and such research is carried out in accordance with recognised ethical standards for scientific research.


### (16) the placing on the market , putting into service or use of certain ai systems intended to distort human behaviour , whereby physical or psychological harms are likely to occur , should be forbidden. such ai systems deploy subliminal components individuals cannot perceive or exploit vulnerabilities of children and people due to their age , physical or mental incapacities. they do so with the intention to materially distort the behaviour of a person and in a manner that causes or is likely to cause harm to that or another person. the intention may not be presumed if the distortion of human behaviour results from factors external to the ai system which are outside of the control of the provider or the user. research for legitimate purposes in relation to such ai systems should not be stifled by the prohibition , if such research does not amount to use of the ai system in human-machine relations that exposes natural persons to harm and such research is carried out in accordance with recognised ethical standards for scientific research. ### (16) the placing on the market , putting into service or use of certain ai systems intended to distort human behaviour , whereby physical or psychological harms are likely to occur , should be forbidden. such ai systems deploy subliminal components individuals cannot perceive or exploit vulnerabilities of children and people due to their age , physical or mental incapacities. they do so with the intention to materially distort the behaviour of a person and in a manner that causes or is likely to cause harm to that or another person. the intention may not be presumed if the distortion of human behaviour results from factors external to the ai system which are outside of the control of the provider or the user. research for legitimate purposes in relation to such ai systems should not be stifled by the prohibition , if such research does not amount to use of the ai system in non-supervised human-machine relations that exposes natural persons to harm and such research is carried out in accordance with recognised ethical standards for scientific research. if necessary , further flexibilities in order to foster research , and thereby european innovation capacities , should be introduced by member states.


### (17) ai systems providing social scoring of natural persons for general purpose by public authorities or on their behalf may lead to discriminatory outcomes and the exclusion of certain groups. they may violate the right to dignity and non-discrimination and the values of equality and justice. such ai systems evaluate or classify the trustworthiness of natural persons based on their social behaviour in multiple contexts or known or predicted personal or personality characteristics. the social score obtained from such ai systems may lead to the detrimental or unfavourable treatment of natural persons or whole groups thereof in social contexts , which are unrelated to the context in which the data was originally generated or collected or to a detrimental treatment that is disproportionate or unjustified to the gravity of their social behaviour. such ai systems should be therefore prohibited. ### (17) ai systems providing social scoring of natural persons for general purpose by public authorities or on their behalf may lead to discriminatory outcomes and the exclusion of certain groups. they may violate the right to dignity and non-discrimination and the values of equality and justice. such ai systems evaluate or classify natural persons based on their social behaviour in multiple contexts or known or predicted personal or personality characteristics using trustworthiness , good citizenship , patriotism , deviancy , or any other such metric as a proxi. the social score obtained from such ai systems may lead to the detrimental or unfavourable treatment of natural persons or whole groups thereof in social contexts , which are unrelated to the context in which the data was originally generated or collected or to a detrimental treatment that is disproportionate or unjustified to the gravity of their social behaviour. this detrimental treatment can also be effected by providing undue and unjustified privileges to groups of people based on their social score. such ai systems should be therefore prohibited.


### (17) ai systems providing social scoring of natural persons for general purpose by public authorities or on their behalf may lead to discriminatory outcomes and the exclusion of certain groups. they may violate the right to dignity and non-discrimination and the values of equality and justice. such ai systems evaluate or classify the trustworthiness of natural persons based on their social behaviour in multiple contexts or known or predicted personal or personality characteristics. the social score obtained from such ai systems may lead to the detrimental or unfavourable treatment of natural persons or whole groups thereof in social contexts , which are unrelated to the context in which the data was originally generated or collected or to a detrimental treatment that is disproportionate or unjustified to the gravity of their social behaviour. such ai systems should be therefore prohibited. ### (17) ai systems that evaluate , classify , rate or score the trustworthiness or social standing of natural persons may lead to discriminatory outcomes and the exclusion of certain groups. they may violate the right to dignity and non-discrimination and the values of equality and justice. such ai systems evaluate or classify the trustworthiness or social standing of natural persons based on multiple data points related to their social behaviour in multiple contexts or known , inferred or predicted personal or personality characteristics. the social score obtained from such ai systems may lead to the detrimental or unfavourable treatment of natural persons or whole groups thereof , which are unrelated to the context in which the data was originally generated or collected or to a detrimental treatment that is disproportionate or unjustified to the gravity of their social behaviour. such ai systems should be therefore prohibited.


### (28) ai systems could produce adverse outcomes to health and safety of persons , in particular when such systems operate as components of products. consistently with the objectives of union harmonisation legislation to facilitate the free movement of products in the internal market and to ensure that only safe and otherwise compliant products find their way into the market , it is important that the safety risks that may be generated by a product as a whole due to its digital components , including ai systems , are duly prevented and mitigated. for instance , increasingly autonomous robots , whether in the context of manufacturing or personal assistance and care should be able to safely operate and performs their functions in complex environments. similarly , in the health sector where the stakes for life and health are particularly high , increasingly sophisticated diagnostics systems and systems supporting human decisions should be reliable and accurate. the extent of the adverse impact caused by the ai system on the fundamental rights protected by the charter is of particular relevance when classifying an ai system as high-risk. those rights include the right to human dignity , respect for private and family life , protection of personal data , freedom of expression and information , freedom of assembly and of association , and non-discrimination , consumer protection , workers’ rights , rights of persons with disabilities , right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial , right of defence and the presumption of innocence , right to good administration. in addition to those rights , it is important to highlight that children have specific rights as enshrined in article 24 of the eu charter and in the united nations convention on the rights of the child (further elaborated in the uncrc general comment no. 25 as regards the digital environment) , both of which require consideration of the children’s vulnerabilities and provision of such protection and care as necessary for their well-being. the fundamental right to a high level of environmental protection enshrined in the charter and implemented in union policies should also be considered when assessing the severity of the harm that an ai system can cause , including in relation to the health and safety of persons. ### (28) ai systems could produce adverse outcomes to health and safety of persons , in particular when such systems operate as components of products. consistently with the objectives of union harmonisation legislation to facilitate the free movement of products in the internal market and to ensure that only safe and otherwise compliant products find their way into the market , it is important that the safety risks that may be generated by a product as a whole due to its digital components , including ai systems , are duly prevented and mitigated. for instance , increasingly autonomous robots , whether in the context of manufacturing or personal assistance and care should be able to safely operate and performs their functions in complex environments. similarly , in the health sector where the stakes for life and health are particularly high , increasingly sophisticated diagnostics systems and systems supporting human decisions should be reliable and accurate. the extent of the adverse impact caused by the ai system on the fundamental rights protected by the charter is of particular relevance when classifying an ai system as high-risk. those rights include the right to human dignity , respect for private and family life , protection of personal data , freedom of expression and information , freedom of assembly and of association , and non-discrimination , consumer protection , workers’ rights , rights of persons with disabilities , right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial , right of defence and the presumption of innocence , right to good administration. in addition to those rights , it is important to highlight that children have specific rights as enshrined in article 24 of the eu charter and in the united nations convention on the rights of the child (further elaborated in the uncrc general comment no. 25 as regards the digital environment) , both of which require consideration of the children’s vulnerabilities and provision of such protection and care as necessary for their well-being. the fundamental right to a high level of environmental protection enshrined in the charter and implemented in union policies should also be considered when assessing the severity of the harm that an ai system can cause , including in relation to the health and safety of persons , the right to a healthy , toxic free environment and the ability to effectively address climate change.


### (35) ai systems used in education or vocational training , notably for determining access or assigning persons to educational and vocational training institutions or to evaluate persons on tests as part of or as a precondition for their education should be considered high-risk , since they may determine the educational and professional course of a person’s life and therefore affect their ability to secure their livelihood. when improperly designed and used , such systems may violate the right to education and training as well as the right not to be discriminated against and perpetuate historical patterns of discrimination. ### (35) ai systems used in education or vocational training , notably for determining access or assigning persons to educational and vocational training institutions or to evaluate persons on tests as part of or as a precondition for their education should be considered high-risk , since they may determine the educational and professional course of a person’s life and therefore affect their ability to secure their livelihood. ai systems that are designed to constantly monitor individuals are particuarly intrusive and violate the right to education and training , the right not to be discriminated against and perpetuate historical patterns of discrimination and should therefore be prohibited.


### (36) ai systems used in employment , workers management and access to self-employment , notably for the recruitment and selection of persons , for making decisions on promotion and termination and for task allocation , monitoring or evaluation of persons in work-related contractual relationships , should also be classified as high-risk , since those systems may appreciably impact future career prospects and livelihoods of these persons. relevant work-related contractual relationships should involve employees and persons providing services through platforms as referred to in the commission work programme 2021. such persons should in principle not be considered users within the meaning of this regulation. throughout the recruitment process and in the evaluation , promotion , or retention of persons in work-related contractual relationships , such systems may perpetuate historical patterns of discrimination , for example against women , certain age groups , persons with disabilities , or persons of certain racial or ethnic origins or sexual orientation. ai systems used to monitor the performance and behaviour of these persons may also impact their rights to data protection and privacy. ### (36) ai systems used in employment , workers management and access to self-employment , notably affecting the initiation , establishment , implementation and termination of an employment relationship , including ai systems intended to support collective legal and regulatory matters should be high risk. particularly ai affecting recruitment and selection of persons , for making decisions on promotion and for task allocation , for measuring and monitoring of performance or for evaluation of persons in work-related contractual relationships , should also be classified as high-risk , since those systems may appreciably impact future career prospects and livelihoods of these persons. ai systems used for constant monitoring of workers pose an unacceptable risk to their fundamental rights , and should be therefore prohibited. relevant work-related contractual relationships should meaningfully involve employees and persons providing services through platforms as referred to in the commission work programme 2021. throughout the recruitment process and in the evaluation , promotion , or retention of persons in work-related contractual relationships , such systems may perpetuate historical patterns of discrimination , for example against women , certain age groups , persons with disabilities , or persons of certain racial or ethnic origins or sexual orientation. ai systems used to monitor the performance and behaviour of these persons may also undermine the essence of their fundamental rights to data protection and privacy. this regulation applies without prejudice to union and member state competences to provide for more specific rules for the use of ai-systems in the employment context.


### (36) ai systems used in employment , workers management and access to self-employment , notably for the recruitment and selection of persons , for making decisions on promotion and termination and for task allocation , monitoring or evaluation of persons in work-related contractual relationships , should also be classified as high-risk , since those systems may appreciably impact future career prospects and livelihoods of these persons. relevant work-related contractual relationships should involve employees and persons providing services through platforms as referred to in the commission work programme 2021. such persons should in principle not be considered users within the meaning of this regulation. throughout the recruitment process and in the evaluation , promotion , or retention of persons in work-related contractual relationships , such systems may perpetuate historical patterns of discrimination , for example against women , certain age groups , persons with disabilities , or persons of certain racial or ethnic origins or sexual orientation. ai systems used to monitor the performance and behaviour of these persons may also impact their rights to data protection and privacy. ### (36) ai systems used in employment , workers management and access to self-employment , notably for the recruitment and selection of persons , for making decisions on promotion and termination and for personalised task allocation based on personal or biometric data , monitoring or evaluation of persons in work-related contractual relationships , should also be classified as high-risk , since those systems may appreciably impact future career prospects and livelihoods of these persons. relevant work-related contractual relationships should involve employees and persons providing services through platforms as referred to in the commission work programme 2021. such persons should in principle not be considered users within the meaning of this regulation. throughout the recruitment process and in the evaluation , promotion , or retention of persons in work-related contractual relationships , such systems may perpetuate historical patterns of discrimination , for example against women , certain age groups , persons with disabilities , or persons of certain racial or ethnic origins or sexual orientation. ai systems used to monitor the performance and behaviour of these persons may also impact their rights to data protection and privacy.


### (38) actions by law enforcement authorities involving certain uses of ai systems are characterised by a significant degree of power imbalance and may lead to surveillance , arrest or deprivation of a natural person’s liberty as well as other adverse impacts on fundamental rights guaranteed in the charter. in particular , if the ai system is not trained with high quality data , does not meet adequate requirements in terms of its accuracy or robustness , or is not properly designed and tested before being put on the market or otherwise put into service , it may single out people in a discriminatory or otherwise incorrect or unjust manner. furthermore , the exercise of important procedural fundamental rights , such as the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial as well as the right of defence and the presumption of innocence , could be hampered , in particular , where such ai systems are not sufficiently transparent , explainable and documented. it is therefore appropriate to classify as high-risk a number of ai systems intended to be used in the law enforcement context where accuracy , reliability and transparency is particularly important to avoid adverse impacts , retain public trust and ensure accountability and effective redress. in view of the nature of the activities in question and the risks relating thereto , those high-risk ai systems should include in particular ai systems intended to be used by law enforcement authorities for individual risk assessments , polygraphs and similar tools or to detect the emotional state of natural person , to detect ‘deep fakes’ , for the evaluation of the reliability of evidence in criminal proceedings , for predicting the occurrence or reoccurrence of an actual or potential criminal offence based on profiling of natural persons , or assessing personality traits and characteristics or past criminal behaviour of natural persons or groups , for profiling in the course of detection , investigation or prosecution of criminal offences , as well as for crime analytics regarding natural persons. ai systems specifically intended to be used for administrative proceedings by tax and customs authorities should not be considered high-risk ai systems used by law enforcement authorities for the purposes of prevention , detection , investigation and prosecution of criminal offences. ### (38) actions by law enforcement authorities involving certain uses of ai systems are characterised by a significant degree of power imbalance and may lead to surveillance , arrest or deprivation of a natural person’s liberty as well as other adverse impacts on fundamental rights guaranteed in the charter. in particular , if the ai system is not trained with high quality data , does not meet adequate requirements in terms of its accuracy or robustness , or is not properly designed and tested before being put on the market or otherwise put into service , it may single out people in a discriminatory or otherwise incorrect or unjust manner. in addition , some applications , such as to make predictions , profiles , or risk assessments based on data analysis or profiling of groups or individuals for the purpose of predicting the occurrence or recurrence of actual or potential offences or rule-breaking undermine the essence of fundamental rights and should be prohibited. furthermore , the exercise of important procedural fundamental rights , such as the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial as well as the right of defence and the presumption of innocence , could be hampered , in particular , where such ai systems are not sufficiently transparent , explainable and documented. it is therefore appropriate to classify as prohibited a number of ai systems intended to be used in the law enforcement context as well as for crime analytics regarding natural persons.


### (38) actions by law enforcement authorities involving certain uses of ai systems are characterised by a significant degree of power imbalance and may lead to surveillance , arrest or deprivation of a natural person’s liberty as well as other adverse impacts on fundamental rights guaranteed in the charter. in particular , if the ai system is not trained with high quality data , does not meet adequate requirements in terms of its accuracy or robustness , or is not properly designed and tested before being put on the market or otherwise put into service , it may single out people in a discriminatory or otherwise incorrect or unjust manner. furthermore , the exercise of important procedural fundamental rights , such as the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial as well as the right of defence and the presumption of innocence , could be hampered , in particular , where such ai systems are not sufficiently transparent , explainable and documented. it is therefore appropriate to classify as high-risk a number of ai systems intended to be used in the law enforcement context where accuracy , reliability and transparency is particularly important to avoid adverse impacts , retain public trust and ensure accountability and effective redress. in view of the nature of the activities in question and the risks relating thereto , those high-risk ai systems should include in particular ai systems intended to be used by law enforcement authorities for individual risk assessments , polygraphs and similar tools or to detect the emotional state of natural person , to detect ‘deep fakes’ , for the evaluation of the reliability of evidence in criminal proceedings , for predicting the occurrence or reoccurrence of an actual or potential criminal offence based on profiling of natural persons , or assessing personality traits and characteristics or past criminal behaviour of natural persons or groups , for profiling in the course of detection , investigation or prosecution of criminal offences , as well as for crime analytics regarding natural persons. ai systems specifically intended to be used for administrative proceedings by tax and customs authorities should not be considered high-risk ai systems used by law enforcement authorities for the purposes of prevention , detection , investigation and prosecution of criminal offences. ### (38) actions by law enforcement authorities involving certain uses of ai systems are characterised by a significant degree of power imbalance and may lead to surveillance , arrest or deprivation of a natural person’s liberty as well as other adverse impacts on fundamental rights guaranteed in the charter. in particular , if the ai system is not trained with high quality data , does not meet adequate requirements in terms of its accuracy or robustness , or is not properly designed and tested before being put on the market or otherwise put into service , it may single out people in a discriminatory or otherwise incorrect or unjust manner. furthermore , the exercise of important procedural fundamental rights , such as the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial as well as the right of defence and the presumption of innocence , could be hampered , in particular , where such ai systems are not sufficiently transparent , explainable and documented. it is therefore appropriate to classify as high-risk a number of ai systems intended to be used in the law enforcement context where accuracy , reliability and transparency is particularly important to avoid adverse impacts , retain public trust and ensure accountability and effective redress. in view of the nature of the activities in question and the risks relating thereto , those high-risk ai systems should include in particular ai systems intended to be used by law enforcement authorities for individual risk assessments , polygraphs and similar tools or to detect the emotional state of natural person , to detect ‘deep fakes’ , for the evaluation of the reliability of evidence in criminal proceedings , for profiling in the course of detection , investigation or prosecution of criminal offences , as well as for crime analytics regarding natural persons. ai systems specifically intended to be used for administrative proceedings by tax and customs authorities should not be considered high-risk ai systems used by law enforcement authorities for the purposes of prevention , detection , investigation and prosecution of criminal offences.


### (38) actions by law enforcement authorities involving certain uses of ai systems are characterised by a significant degree of power imbalance and may lead to surveillance , arrest or deprivation of a natural person’s liberty as well as other adverse impacts on fundamental rights guaranteed in the charter. in particular , if the ai system is not trained with high quality data , does not meet adequate requirements in terms of its accuracy or robustness , or is not properly designed and tested before being put on the market or otherwise put into service , it may single out people in a discriminatory or otherwise incorrect or unjust manner. furthermore , the exercise of important procedural fundamental rights , such as the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial as well as the right of defence and the presumption of innocence , could be hampered , in particular , where such ai systems are not sufficiently transparent , explainable and documented. it is therefore appropriate to classify as high-risk a number of ai systems intended to be used in the law enforcement context where accuracy , reliability and transparency is particularly important to avoid adverse impacts , retain public trust and ensure accountability and effective redress. in view of the nature of the activities in question and the risks relating thereto , those high-risk ai systems should include in particular ai systems intended to be used by law enforcement authorities for individual risk assessments , polygraphs and similar tools or to detect the emotional state of natural person , to detect ‘deep fakes’ , for the evaluation of the reliability of evidence in criminal proceedings , for predicting the occurrence or reoccurrence of an actual or potential criminal offence based on profiling of natural persons , or assessing personality traits and characteristics or past criminal behaviour of natural persons or groups , for profiling in the course of detection , investigation or prosecution of criminal offences , as well as for crime analytics regarding natural persons. ai systems specifically intended to be used for administrative proceedings by tax and customs authorities should not be considered high-risk ai systems used by law enforcement authorities for the purposes of prevention , detection , investigation and prosecution of criminal offences. ### (38) actions by law enforcement authorities involving certain uses of ai systems are characterised by a significant degree of power imbalance and may lead to surveillance , arrest or deprivation of a natural person’s liberty as well as other adverse impacts on fundamental rights guaranteed in the charter. in particular , if the ai system is not trained with high quality data , does not meet adequate requirements in terms of its accuracy or robustness , or is not properly designed and tested before being put on the market or otherwise put into service , it may single out people in a discriminatory or otherwise incorrect or unjust manner. furthermore , the exercise of important procedural fundamental rights , such as the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial as well as the right of defence and the presumption of innocence , could be hampered , in particular , where such ai systems are not sufficiently transparent , explainable and documented. it is therefore appropriate to classify as high-risk a number of ai systems intended to be used in the law enforcement context where accuracy , reliability and transparency is particularly important to avoid adverse impacts , retain public trust and ensure accountability and effective redress. in view of the nature of the activities in question and the risks relating thereto , those high-risk ai systems should include in particular ai systems intended to be used by law enforcement authorities for individual risk assessments , polygraphs and similar tools or to detect the emotional state of natural person , to detect ‘deep fakes’ , for the evaluation of the reliability of evidence in criminal proceedings , for predicting the occurrence or reoccurrence of an actual or potential criminal offence based on profiling of natural persons , or assessing personality traits and characteristics or past criminal behaviour of natural persons or groups , for profiling in the course of detection , investigation or prosecution of criminal offences , as well as for crime analytics regarding natural persons. ai systems specifically intended to be used for administrative proceedings by tax and customs authorities should not be considered high-risk ai systems used by law enforcement authorities for the purposes of prevention , detection , investigation and prosecution of criminal offences. such requirements on transparency and on the explicability of ai decision-making should also help to counter the deterrent effects of digital asymmetry and so-called ‘dark patterns’ targeting individuals and their informed consent.


### (39) ai systems used in migration , asylum and border control management affect people who are often in particularly vulnerable position and who are dependent on the outcome of the actions of the competent public authorities. the accuracy , non-discriminatory nature and transparency of the ai systems used in those contexts are therefore particularly important to guarantee the respect of the fundamental rights of the affected persons , notably their rights to free movement , non-discrimination , protection of private life and personal data , international protection and good administration. it is therefore appropriate to classify as high-risk ai systems intended to be used by the competent public authorities charged with tasks in the fields of migration , asylum and border control management as polygraphs and similar tools or to detect the emotional state of a natural person; for assessing certain risks posed by natural persons entering the territory of a member state or applying for visa or asylum; for verifying the authenticity of the relevant documents of natural persons; for assisting competent public authorities for the examination of applications for asylum , visa and residence permits and associated complaints with regard to the objective to establish the eligibility of the natural persons applying for a status. ai systems in the area of migration , asylum and border control management covered by this regulation should comply with the relevant procedural requirements set by the directive 2013/32/eu of the european parliament and of the council49 , the regulation (ec) no 810/2009 of the european parliament and of the council50 and other relevant legislation. ### (39) ai systems used in migration , asylum and border control management affect people who are often in a particularly vulnerable position and who are dependent on the outcome of the actions of the competent public authorities. the accuracy , non-discriminatory nature and transparency of the ai systems used in those contexts are therefore particularly important to guarantee the respect of the fundamental rights of the affected persons , notably their rights to free movement , non-discrimination , protection of private life and personal data , international protection and good administration. it is therefore appropriate to classify as high-risk ai systems intended to be used by the competent public authorities charged with tasks in the fields of migration , asylum and border control management as applying for visa or asylum; for verifying the authenticity of the relevant documents of natural persons; for assisting competent public authorities for the examination of applications for asylum , visa and residence permits and associated complaints with regard to the objective to establish the eligibility of the natural persons applying for a status. ai systems in the area of migration , asylum and border control management covered by this regulation should comply with the relevant procedural requirements set by the directive 2013/32/eu of the european parliament and of the council , the regulation (ec) no 810/2009 of the european parliament and of the council and other relevant legislation


### (40) certain ai systems intended for the administration of justice and democratic processes should be classified as high-risk , considering their potentially significant impact on democracy , rule of law , individual freedoms as well as the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial. in particular , to address the risks of potential biases , errors and opacity , it is appropriate to qualify as high-risk ai systems intended to assist judicial authorities in researching and interpreting facts and the law and in applying the law to a concrete set of facts. such qualification should not extend , however , to ai systems intended for purely ancillary administrative activities that do not affect the actual administration of justice in individual cases , such as anonymisation or pseudonymisation of judicial decisions , documents or data , communication between personnel , administrative tasks or allocation of resources. ### (40) certain ai systems intended for the administration of justice and democratic processes should be classified as high-risk , considering their potentially significant impact on democracy , rule of law , individual freedoms as well as the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial. the use of artificial intelligence tools can support , but should not interfere with the decision-making power of judges or judicial independence , as the final decision-making must remain a human-driven activity and decision. in particular , to address the risks of potential biases , errors and opacity , it is appropriate to qualify as high-risk ai systems intended to assist judicial authorities in researching and interpreting facts and the law and in applying the law. such qualification should not extend , however , to ai systems intended for purely ancillary administrative activities that do not affect the actual administration of justice in individual cases , such as anonymisation or pseudonymisation of judicial decisions , documents or data , communication between personnel , administrative tasks or allocation of resources


### (41) the fact that an ai system is classified as high risk under this regulation should not be interpreted as indicating that the use of the system is necessarily lawful under other acts of union law or under national law compatible with union law , such as on the protection of personal data , on the use of polygraphs and similar tools or other systems to detect the emotional state of natural persons. any such use should continue to occur solely in accordance with the applicable requirements resulting from the charter and from the applicable acts of secondary union law and national law. this regulation should not be understood as providing for the legal ground for processing of personal data , including special categories of personal data , where relevant. ### (41) the fact that an ai system is classified as high risk under this regulation should not be interpreted as indicating that the use of the system is necessarily lawful under other acts of union law or under national law compatible with union law , such as on the protection of personal data. any such use should continue to occur solely in accordance with the applicable requirements resulting from the charter and from the applicable acts of secondary union law and national law. this regulation should not be understood as providing for the legal ground for processing of personal data , including special categories of personal data , where relevant.