EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 21.4.2021 COM(2021) 206 final 2021/0106(COD) Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL LAYING DOWN HARMONISED RULES ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ACT) AND AMENDING CERTAIN UNION LEGISLATIVE ACTS {SEC(2021) 167 final} - {SWD(2021) 84 final} - {SWD(2021) 85 final}



EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 1.CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1.Reasons for and objectives of the proposal This explanatory memorandum accompanies the proposal for a Regulation laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a fast evolving family of technologies that can bring 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 service delivery, the use of artificial intelligence can support socially and environmentally beneficial outcomes and provide key competitive advantages to companies and the European economy. Such action is especially needed in high-impact sectors, including climate change, environment and health, the public sector, finance, mobility, home affairs and agriculture. However, the same elements and techniques that power the socio-economic benefits of AI can also bring about new risks or negative consequences for individuals or the society. In light of the speed of technological change and possible challenges, the EU is committed to strive for a balanced approach. It is in the Union interest to preserve the EU’s technological leadership and to ensure that Europeans can benefit from new technologies developed and functioning according to Union values, fundamental rights and principles. This proposal delivers on the political commitment by President von der Leyen, who announced in her political guidelines for the 2019-2024 Commission “A Union that strives for more”, that the Commission would put forward legislation for a coordinated European approach on the human and ethical implications of AI. Following on that announcement, on 19 February 2020 the Commission published the White Paper on AI - A European approach to excellence and trust. The White Paper sets out policy options on how to achieve the twin objective of promoting the uptake of AI and of addressing the risks associated with certain uses of such technology. This proposal aims to implement the second objective for the development of an ecosystem of trust by proposing a legal framework for trustworthy AI. The proposal is based on EU values and fundamental rights and aims to give people and other users the confidence to embrace AI-based solutions, while encouraging businesses to develop them. AI should be a tool for people and be a force for good in society with the ultimate aim of increasing human well-being. Rules for AI available in the Union market or otherwise affecting people in the Union should therefore be human centric, so that people can trust that the technology is used in a way that is safe and compliant with the law, including the respect of fundamental rights. Following the publication of the White Paper, the Commission launched a broad stakeholder consultation, which was met with a great interest by a large number of stakeholders who were largely supportive of regulatory intervention to address the challenges and concerns raised by the increasing use of AI. The proposal also responds to explicit requests from the European Parliament (EP) and the European Council, which have repeatedly expressed calls for legislative action to ensure a well-functioning internal market for artificial intelligence systems (‘AI systems’) where both benefits and risks of AI are adequately addressed at Union level. It supports the objective of the Union being a global leader in the development of secure, trustworthy and ethical artificial intelligence as stated by the European Council and ensures the protection of ethical principles as specifically requested by the European Parliament. In 2017, the European Council called for a ‘sense of urgency to address emerging trends’ including ‘issues such as artificial intelligence …, while at the same time ensuring a high level of data protection, digital rights and ethical standards’. In its 2019 Conclusions on the Coordinated Plan on the development and use of artificial intelligence Made in Europe, the Council further highlighted the importance of ensuring that European citizens’ rights are fully respected and called for a review of the existing relevant legislation to make it fit for purpose for the new opportunities and challenges raised by AI. The European Council has also called for a clear determination of the AI applications that should be considered high-risk. The most recent Conclusions from 21 October 2020 further called for addressing the opacity, complexity, bias, a certain degree of unpredictability and partially autonomous behaviour of certain AI systems, to ensure their compatibility with fundamental rights and to facilitate the enforcement of legal rules. The European Parliament has also undertaken a considerable amount of work in the area of AI. In October 2020, it adopted a number of resolutions related to AI, including on ethics, liability and copyright. In 2021, those were followed by resolutions on AI in criminal matters and in education, culture and the audio-visual sector. The EP Resolution on a Framework of Ethical Aspects of Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and Related Technologies specifically recommends to the Commission to propose legislative action to harness the opportunities and benefits of AI, but also to ensure protection of ethical principles. The resolution includes a text of the legislative proposal for a regulation on ethical principles for the development, deployment and use of AI, robotics and related technologies. In accordance with the political commitment made by President von der Leyen in her Political Guidelines as regards resolutions adopted by the European Parliament under Article 225 TFEU, this proposal takes into account the aforementioned resolution of the European Parliament in full respect of proportionality, subsidiarity and better law making principles. Against this political context, the Commission puts forward the proposed regulatory framework on Artificial Intelligence with the following specific objectives: ·ensure that AI systems placed on the Union market and used are safe and respect existing law on fundamental rights and Union values; ·ensure legal certainty to facilitate investment and innovation in AI; ·enhance governance and effective enforcement of existing law on fundamental rights and safety requirements applicable to AI systems; ·facilitate the development of a single market for lawful, safe and trustworthy AI applications and prevent market fragmentation. To achieve those objectives, this proposal presents a balanced and proportionate horizontal regulatory approach to AI that is limited to the minimum necessary requirements to address the risks and problems linked to AI, without unduly constraining or hindering technological development or otherwise disproportionately increasing the cost of placing AI solutions on the market. The proposal sets a robust and flexible legal framework. On the one hand, it is comprehensive and future-proof in its fundamental regulatory choices, including the principle-based requirements that AI systems should comply with. On the other hand, it puts in place a proportionate regulatory system centred on a well-defined risk-based regulatory approach that does not create unnecessary restrictions to trade, whereby legal intervention is tailored to those concrete situations where there is a justified cause for concern or where such concern can reasonably be anticipated in the near future. At the same time, the legal framework includes flexible mechanisms that enable it to be dynamically adapted as the technology evolves and new concerning situations emerge. The proposal sets harmonised rules for the development, placement on the market and use of AI systems in the Union following a proportionate risk-based approach. It proposes a single future-proof definition of AI. Certain particularly harmful AI practices are prohibited as contravening Union values, while specific restrictions and safeguards are proposed in relation to certain uses of remote biometric identification systems for the purpose of law enforcement. The proposal lays down a solid risk methodology to define “high-risk” AI systems that pose significant risks to the health and safety or fundamental rights of persons. Those AI systems will have to comply with a set of horizontal mandatory requirements for trustworthy AI and follow conformity assessment procedures before those systems can be placed on the Union market. Predictable, proportionate and clear obligations are also placed on providers and users of those systems to ensure safety and respect of existing legislation protecting fundamental rights throughout the whole AI systems’ lifecycle. For some specific AI systems, only minimum transparency obligations are proposed, in particular when chatbots or ‘deep fakes’ are used. The proposed rules will be enforced through a governance system at Member States level, building on already existing structures, and a cooperation mechanism at Union level with the establishment of a European Artificial Intelligence Board. Additional measures are also proposed to support innovation, in particular through AI regulatory sandboxes and other measures to reduce the regulatory burden and to support Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (‘SMEs’) and start-ups. 1.2.Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area The horizontal nature of the proposal requires full consistency with existing Union legislation applicable to sectors where high-risk AI systems are already used or likely to be used in the near future.

Consistency is also ensured with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the existing secondary Union legislation on data protection, consumer protection, non-discrimination and gender equality. The proposal is without prejudice and complements the General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679) and the Law Enforcement Directive (Directive (EU) 2016/680) with a set of harmonised rules applicable to the design, development and use of certain high-risk AI systems and restrictions on certain uses of remote biometric identification systems. Furthermore, the proposal complements existing Union law on non-discrimination with specific requirements that aim to minimise the risk of algorithmic discrimination, in particular in relation to the design and the quality of data sets used for the development of AI systems complemented with obligations for testing, risk management, documentation and human oversight throughout the AI systems’ lifecycle. The proposal is without prejudice to the application of Union competition law. As regards high-risk AI systems which are safety components of products, this proposal will be integrated into the existing sectoral safety legislation to ensure consistency, avoid duplications and minimise additional burdens. In particular, as regards high-risk AI systems related to products covered by the New Legislative Framework (NLF) legislation (e.g. machinery, medical devices, toys), the requirements for AI systems set out in this proposal will be checked as part of the existing conformity assessment procedures under the relevant NLF legislation. With regard to the interplay of requirements, while the safety risks specific to AI systems are meant to be covered by the requirements of this proposal, NLF legislation aims at ensuring the overall safety of the final product and therefore may contain specific requirements regarding the safe integration of an AI system into the final product. The proposal for a Machinery Regulation, which is adopted on the same day as this proposal fully reflects this approach. As regards high-risk AI systems related to products covered by relevant Old Approach legislation (e.g. aviation, cars), this proposal would not directly apply. However, the ex-ante essential requirements for high-risk AI systems set out in this proposal will have to be taken into account when adopting relevant implementing or delegated legislation under those acts. As regards AI systems provided or used by regulated credit institutions, the authorities responsible for the supervision of the Union’s financial services legislation should be designated as competent authorities for supervising the requirements in this proposal to ensure a coherent enforcement of the obligations under this proposal and the Union’s financial services legislation where AI systems are to some extent implicitly regulated in relation to the internal governance system of credit institutions. To further enhance consistency, the conformity assessment procedure and some of the providers’ procedural obligations under this proposal are integrated into the procedures under Directive 2013/36/EU on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision. This proposal is also consistent with the applicable Union legislation on services, including on intermediary services regulated by the e-Commerce Directive 2000/31/EC and the Commission’s recent proposal for the Digital Services Act (DSA). In relation to AI systems that are components of large-scale IT systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice managed by the European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems (eu-LISA), the proposal will not apply to those AI systems that have been placed on the market or put into service before one year has elapsed from the date of application of this Regulation, unless the replacement or amendment of those legal acts leads to a significant change in the design or intended purpose of the AI system or AI systems concerned. 1.3.Consistency with other Union policies The proposal is part of a wider comprehensive package of measures that address problems posed by the development and use of AI, as examined in the White Paper on AI. Consistency and complementarity is therefore ensured with other ongoing or planned initiatives of the Commission that also aim to address those problems, including the revision of sectoral product legislation (e.g. the Machinery Directive, the General Product Safety Directive) and initiatives that address liability issues related to new technologies, including AI systems. Those initiatives will build on and complement this proposal in order to bring legal clarity and foster the development of an ecosystem of trust in AI in Europe. The proposal is also coherent with the Commission’s overall digital strategy in its contribution to promoting technology that works for people, one of the three main pillars of the policy orientation and objectives announced in the Communication ‘Shaping Europe's digital future’. It lays down a coherent, effective and proportionate framework to ensure AI is developed in ways that respect people’s rights and earn their trust, making Europe fit for the digital age and turning the next ten years into the Digital Decade. Furthermore, the promotion of AI-driven innovation is closely linked to the Data Governance Act, the Open Data Directive and other initiatives under the EU strategy for data, which will establish trusted mechanisms and services for the re-use, sharing and pooling of data that are essential for the development of data-driven AI models of high quality. The proposal also strengthens significantly the Union’s role to help shape global norms and standards and promote trustworthy AI that is consistent with Union values and interests. It provides the Union with a powerful basis to engage further with its external partners, including third countries, and at international fora on issues relating to AI. 2.LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY 2.1.Legal basis The legal basis for the proposal is in the first place Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which provides for the adoption of measures to ensure the establishment and functioning of the internal market. This proposal constitutes a core part of the EU digital single market strategy. The primary objective of this proposal is to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market by setting harmonised rules in particular on the development, placing on the Union market and the use of products and services making use of AI technologies or provided as stand-alone AI systems. Some Member States are already considering national rules to ensure that AI is safe and is developed and used in compliance with fundamental rights obligations. This will likely lead to two main problems: i) a fragmentation of the internal market on essential elements regarding in particular the requirements for the AI products and services, their marketing, their use, the liability and the supervision by public authorities, and ii) the substantial diminishment of legal certainty for both providers and users of AI systems on how existing and new rules will apply to those systems in the Union. Given the wide circulation of products and services across borders, these two problems can be best solved through EU harmonizing legislation. Indeed, the proposal defines common mandatory requirements applicable to the design and development of certain AI systems before they are placed on the market that will be further operationalised through harmonised technical standards. The proposal also addresses the situation after AI systems have been placed on the market by harmonising the way in which ex-post controls are conducted. In addition, considering that this proposal contains certain specific rules on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data, notably 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. 2.2.Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence) The nature of AI, which often relies on large and varied datasets and which may be embedded in any product or service circulating freely within the internal market, entails that the objectives of this proposal cannot be effectively achieved by Member States alone. Furthermore, an emerging patchwork of potentially divergent national rules will hamper the seamless circulation of products and services related to AI systems across the EU and will be ineffective in ensuring the safety and protection of fundamental rights and Union values across the different Member States. National approaches in addressing the problems will only create additional legal uncertainty and barriers, and will slow market uptake of AI. The objectives of this proposal can be better achieved at Union level to avoid a further fragmentation of the Single Market into potentially contradictory national frameworks preventing the free circulation of goods and services embedding AI. A solid European regulatory framework for trustworthy AI will also ensure a level playing field and protect all people, while strengthening Europe’s competitiveness and industrial basis in AI. Only common action at Union level can also protect the Union’s digital sovereignty and leverage its tools and regulatory powers to shape global rules and standards. 2.3.Proportionality

The proposal builds on existing legal frameworks and is proportionate and necessary to achieve its objectives, since it follows a risk-based approach and imposes regulatory burdens only when an AI system is likely to pose high risks to fundamental rights and safety. For other, non-high-risk AI systems, only very limited transparency obligations are imposed, for example in terms of the provision of information to flag the use of an AI system when interacting with humans. For high-risk AI systems, the requirements of high quality data, documentation and traceability, transparency, human oversight, accuracy and robustness, are strictly necessary to mitigate the risks to fundamental rights and safety posed by AI and that are not covered by other existing legal frameworks. Harmonised standards and supporting guidance and compliance tools will assist providers and users in complying with the requirements laid down by the proposal and minimise their costs. The costs incurred by operators are proportionate to the objectives achieved and the economic and reputational benefits that operators can expect from this proposal. 2.4.Choice of the instrument The choice of a regulation as a legal instrument is justified by the need for a uniform application of the new rules, such as definition of AI, the prohibition of certain harmful AI-enabled practices and the classification of certain AI systems. The direct applicability of a Regulation, in accordance with Article 288 TFEU, will reduce legal fragmentation and facilitate the development of a single market for lawful, safe and trustworthy AI systems. It will do so, in particular, by introducing a harmonised set of core requirements with regard to AI systems classified as high-risk and obligations for providers and users of those systems, improving the protection of fundamental rights and providing legal certainty for operators and consumers alike. At the same time, the provisions of the regulation are not overly prescriptive and leave room for different levels of Member State action for elements that do not undermine the objectives of the initiative, in particular the internal organisation of the market surveillance system and the uptake of measures to foster innovation. 3.RESULTS OF EX-POST EVALUATIONS, STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS 3.1.Stakeholder consultation This proposal is the result of extensive consultation with all major stakeholders, in which the general principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the Commission were applied. An online public consultation was launched on 19 February 2020 along with the publication of the White Paper on Artificial Intelligence and ran until 14 June 2020. The objective of that consultation was to collect views and opinions on the White Paper. It targeted all interested stakeholders from the public and private sectors, including governments, local authorities, commercial and non-commercial organisations, social partners, experts, academics and citizens. After analysing all the responses received, the Commission published a summary outcome and the individual responses on its website. In total, 1215 contributions were received, of which 352 were from companies or business organisations/associations, 406 from individuals (92%individuals from EU ), 152 on behalf of academic/research institutions, and 73 from public authorities. Civil society’s voices were represented by 160 respondents (among which 9 consumers’ organisations, 129 non-governmental organisations and 22 trade unions), 72 respondents contributed as ‘others’. Of the 352 business and industry representatives, 222 were companies and business representatives, 41.5% of which were micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. The rest were business associations. Overall, 84% of business and industry replies came from the EU-27. Depending on the question, between 81 and 598 of the respondents used the free text option to insert comments. Over 450 position papers were submitted through the EU Survey website, either in addition to questionnaire answers (over 400) or as stand-alone contributions (over 50). Overall, there is a general agreement amongst stakeholders on a need for action. A large majority of stakeholders agree that legislative gaps exist or that new legislation is needed. However, several stakeholders warn the Commission to avoid duplication, conflicting obligations and overregulation. There were many comments underlining the importance of a technology neutral and proportionate regulatory framework. Stakeholders mostly requested a narrow, clear and precise definition for AI. Stakeholders also highlighted that besides the clarification of the term of AI, it is important to define ‘risk’, ‘high-risk’, ‘low-risk’, ‘remote biometric identification’ and ‘harm’. Most of the respondents are explicitly in favour of the risk-based approach. Using a risk-based framework was considered a better option than blanket regulation of all AI systems. The types of risks and threats should be based on a sector-by-sector and case-by-case approach. Risks also should be calculated taking into account the impact on rights and safety. Regulatory sandboxes could be very useful for the promotion of AI and are welcomed by certain stakeholders, especially the Business Associations. Among those who formulated their opinion on the enforcement models, more than 50%, especially from the business associations, were in favour of a combination of an ex-ante risk self-assessment and an ex-post enforcement for high-risk AI systems. 3.2.Collection and use of expertise The proposal builds on two years of analysis and close involvement of stakeholders, including academics, businesses, social partners, non-governmental organisations, Member States and citizens. The preparatory work started in 2018 with the setting up of a High-Level Expert Group on AI (HLEG) which had an inclusive and broad composition of 52 well-known experts tasked to advise the Commission on the implementation of the Commission’s Strategy on Artificial Intelligence. In April 2019, the Commission supported the key requirements set out in the HLEG ethics guidelines for Trustworthy AI, which had been revised to take into account more than 500 submissions from stakeholders. The key requirements reflect a widespread and common approach, as evidenced by a plethora of ethical codes and principles developed by many private and public organisations in Europe and beyond, that AI development and use should be guided by certain essential value-oriented principles. The Assessment List for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (ALTAI) made those requirements operational in a piloting process with over 350 organisations. In addition, the AI Alliance was formed as a platform for approximately 4000 stakeholders to debate the technological and societal implications of AI, culminating in a yearly AI Assembly. The White Paper on AI further developed this inclusive approach, inciting comments from more than 1250 stakeholders, including over 450 additional position papers. As a result, the Commission published an Inception Impact Assessment, which in turn attracted more than 130 comments. Additional stakeholder workshops and events were also organised the results of which support the analysis in the impact assessment and the policy choices made in this proposal. An external study was also procured to feed into the impact assessment. 3.3.Impact assessment In line with its “Better Regulation” policy, the Commission conducted an impact assessment for this proposal examined by the Commission's Regulatory Scrutiny Board. A meeting with the Regulatory Scrutiny Board was held on 16 December 2020, which was followed by a negative opinion. After substantial revision of the impact assessment to address the comments and a resubmission of the impact assessment, the Regulatory Scrutiny Board issued a positive opinion on 21 March 2021. The opinions of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board, the recommendations and an explanation of how they have been taken into account are presented in Annex 1 of the impact assessment.

The Commission examined different policy options to achieve the general objective of the proposal, which is to ensure the proper functioning of the single market by creating the conditions for the development and use of trustworthy AI in the Union. Four policy options of different degrees of regulatory intervention were assessed: ·Option 1: EU legislative instrument setting up a voluntary labelling scheme; ·Option 2: a sectoral, “ad-hoc” approach; ·Option 3: Horizontal EU legislative instrument following a proportionate risk-based approach; ·Option 3+: Horizontal EU legislative instrument following a proportionate risk-based approach + codes of conduct for non-high-risk AI systems; ·Option 4: Horizontal EU legislative instrument establishing mandatory requirements for all AI systems, irrespective of the risk they pose. According to the Commission's established methodology, each policy option was evaluated against economic and societal impacts, with a particular focus on impacts on fundamental rights. The preferred option is option 3+, a regulatory framework for high-risk AI systems only, with the possibility for all providers of non-high-risk AI systems to follow a code of conduct. The requirements will concern data, documentation and traceability, provision of information and transparency, human oversight and robustness and accuracy and would be mandatory for high-risk AI systems. Companies that introduced codes of conduct for other AI systems would do so voluntarily. The preferred option was considered suitable to address in the most effective way the objectives of this proposal. By requiring a restricted yet effective set of actions from AI developers and users, the preferred option limits the risks of violation of fundamental rights and safety of people and foster effective supervision and enforcement, by targeting the requirements only to systems where there is a high risk that such violations could occur. As a result, that option keeps compliance costs to a minimum, thus avoiding an unnecessary slowing of uptake due to higher prices and compliance costs. In order to address possible disadvantages for SMEs, this option includes several provisions to support their compliance and reduce their costs, including creation of regulatory sandboxes and obligation to consider SMEs interests when setting fees related to conformity assessment. The preferred option will increase people’s trust in AI, companies will gain in legal certainty, and Member States will see no reason to take unilateral action that could fragment the single market. As a result of higher demand due to higher trust, more available offers due to legal certainty, and the absence of obstacles to cross-border movement of AI systems, the single market for AI will likely flourish. The European Union will continue to develop a fast-growing AI ecosystem of innovative services and products embedding AI technology or stand-alone AI systems, resulting in increased digital autonomy. Businesses or public authorities that develop or use AI applications that constitute a high risk for the safety or fundamental rights of citizens would have to comply with specific requirements and obligations. Compliance with these requirements would imply costs amounting to approximately EUR € 6000 to EUR € 7000 for the supply of an average high-risk AI system of around EUR € 170000 by 2025. For AI users, there would also be the annual cost for the time spent on ensuring human oversight where this is appropriate, depending on the use case. Those have been estimated at approximately EUR € 5000 to EUR € 8000 per year. Verification costs could amount to another EUR € 3000 to EUR € 7500 for suppliers of high-risk AI. Businesses or public authorities that develop or use any AI applications not classified as high risk would only have minimal obligations of information. However, they could choose to join others and together adopt a code of conduct to follow suitable requirements, and to ensure that their AI systems are trustworthy. In such a case, costs would be at most as high as for high-risk AI systems, but most probably lower. The impacts of the policy options on different categories of stakeholders (economic operators/ business; conformity assessment bodies, standardisation bodies and other public bodies; individuals/citizens; researchers) are explained in detail in Annex 3 of the Impact assessment supporting this proposal. 3.4.Regulatory fitness and simplification This proposal lays down obligation that will apply to providers and users of high-risk AI systems. For providers who develop and place such systems on the Union market, it will create legal certainty and ensure that no obstacle to the cross-border provision of AI-related services and products emerge. For companies using AI, it will promote trust among their customers. For national public administrations, it will promote public trust in the use of AI and strengthen enforcement mechanisms (by introducing a European coordination mechanism, providing for appropriate capacities, and facilitating audits of the AI systems with new requirements for documentation, traceability and transparency). Moreover, the framework will envisage specific measures supporting innovation, including regulatory sandboxes and specific measures supporting small-scale users and providers of high-risk AI systems to comply with the new rules. The proposal also specifically aims at strengthening Europe’s competitiveness and industrial basis in AI. Full consistency is ensured with existing sectoral Union legislation applicable to AI systems (e.g. on products and services) that will bring further clarity and simplify the enforcement of the new rules. 3.5.Fundamental rights The use of AI with its specific characteristics (e.g. opacity, complexity, dependency on data, autonomous behaviour) can adversely affect a number of fundamental rights enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (‘the Charter’). This proposal seeks to ensure a high level of protection for those fundamental rights and aims to address various sources of risks through a clearly defined risk-based approach. With a set of requirements for trustworthy AI and proportionate obligations on all value chain participants, the proposal will enhance and promote the protection of the rights protected by the Charter: the right to human dignity (Article 1), respect for private life and protection of personal data (Articles 7 and 8), non-discrimination (Article 21) and equality between women and men (Article 23). It aims to prevent a chilling effect on the rights to freedom of expression (Article 11) and freedom of assembly (Article 12), to ensure protection of the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, the rights of defence and the presumption of innocence (Articles 47 and 48), as well as the general principle of good administration. Furthermore, as applicable in certain domains, the proposal will positively affect the rights of a number of special groups, such as the workers’ rights to fair and just working conditions (Article 31), a high level of consumer protection (Article 28), the rights of the child (Article 24) and the integration of persons with disabilities (Article 26). The right to a high level of environmental protection and the improvement of the quality of the environment (Article 37) is also relevant, including in relation to the health and safety of people. The obligations for ex ante testing, risk management and human oversight will also facilitate the respect of other fundamental rights by minimising the risk of erroneous or biased AI-assisted decisions in critical areas such as education and training, employment, important services, law enforcement and the judiciary. In case infringements of fundamental rights still happen, effective redress for affected persons will be made possible by ensuring transparency and traceability of the AI systems coupled with strong ex post controls. This proposal imposes some restrictions on the freedom to conduct business (Article 16) and the freedom of art and science (Article 13) to ensure compliance with overriding reasons of public interest such as health, safety, consumer protection and the protection of other fundamental rights (‘responsible innovation’) when high-risk AI technology is developed and used. Those restrictions are proportionate and limited to the minimum necessary to prevent and mitigate serious safety risks and likely infringements of fundamental rights. The increased transparency obligations will also not disproportionately affect the right to protection of intellectual property (Article 17(2)), since they will be limited only to the minimum necessary information for individuals to exercise their right to an effective remedy and to the necessary transparency towards supervision and enforcement authorities, in line with their mandates. Any disclosure of information will be carried out in compliance with relevant legislation in the field, including Directive 2016/943 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure. When public authorities and notified bodies need to be given access to confidential information or source code to examine compliance with substantial obligations, they are placed under binding confidentiality obligations. 4.BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS

Member States will have to designate supervisory authorities in charge of implementing the legislative requirements. Their supervisory function could build on existing arrangements, for example regarding conformity assessment bodies or market surveillance, but would require sufficient technological expertise and human and financial resources. Depending on the pre-existing structure in each Member State, this could amount to 1 to 25 Full Time Equivalents per Member State. A detailed overview of the costs involved is provided in the ‘financial statement’ linked to this proposal. 5.OTHER ELEMENTS 5.1.Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements Providing for a robust monitoring and evaluation mechanism is crucial to ensure that the proposal will be effective in achieving its specific objectives. The Commission will be in charge of monitoring the effects of the proposal. It will establish a system for registering stand-alone high-risk AI applications in a public EU-wide database. This registration will also enable competent authorities, users and other interested people to verify if the high-risk AI system complies with the requirements laid down in the proposal and to exercise enhanced oversight over those AI systems posing high risks to fundamental rights. To feed this database, AI providers will be obliged to provide meaningful information about their systems and the conformity assessment carried out on those systems. Moreover, AI providers will be obliged to inform national competent authorities about serious incidents or malfunctioning that constitute a breach of fundamental rights obligations as soon as they become aware of them, as well as any recalls or withdrawals of AI systems from the market. National competent authorities will then investigate the incidents/or malfunctioning, collect all the necessary information and regularly transmit it to the Commission with adequate metadata. The Commission will complement this information on the incidents by a comprehensive analysis of the overall market for AI. The Commission will publish a report evaluating and reviewing the proposed AI framework five years following the date on which it becomes applicable. 5.2.Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal 5.2.1.SCOPE AND DEFINITIONS (TITLE I) Title I defines the subject matter of the regulation and the scope of application of the new rules that cover the placing on the market, putting into service and use of AI systems. It also sets out the definitions used throughout the instrument. The definition of AI system in the legal framework aims to be as technology neutral and future proof as possible, taking into account the fast technological and market developments related to AI. In order to provide the needed legal certainty, Title I is complemented by Annex I, which contains a detailed list of approaches and techniques for the development of AI to be adapted by the Commission in line with new technological developments. Key participants across the AI value chain are also clearly defined such as providers and users of AI systems that cover both public and private operators to ensure a level playing field. 5.2.2.PROHIBITED ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE PRACTICES (TITLE II) Title II establishes a list of prohibited AI. The regulation follows a risk-based approach, differentiating between uses of AI that create (i) an unacceptable risk, (ii) a high risk, and (iii) low or minimal risk. The list of prohibited practices in Title II comprises all those AI systems whose use is considered unacceptable as contravening Union values, for instance by violating fundamental rights. The prohibitions covers practices that have a significant potential to manipulate persons through subliminal techniques beyond their consciousness or exploit vulnerabilities of specific vulnerable groups such as children or persons with disabilities in order to materially distort their behaviour in a manner that is likely to cause them or another person psychological or physical harm. Other manipulative or exploitative practices affecting adults that might be facilitated by AI systems could be covered by the existing data protection, consumer protection and digital service legislation that guarantee that natural persons are properly informed and have free choice not to be subject to profiling or other practices that might affect their behaviour. The proposal also prohibits AI-based social scoring for general purposes done by public authorities. Finally, the use of ‘real time’ remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement is also prohibited unless certain limited exceptions apply. 5.2.3.HIGH-RISK AI SYSTEMS (TITLE III) Title III contains specific rules for AI systems that create a high risk to the health and safety or fundamental rights of natural persons. In line with a risk-based approach, those high-risk AI systems are permitted on the European market subject to compliance with certain mandatory requirements and an ex-ante conformity assessment. The classification of an AI system as high-risk is based on the intended purpose of the AI system, in line with existing product safety legislation. Therefore, the classification as high-risk does not only depend on the function performed by the AI system, but also on the specific purpose and modalities for which that system is used. Chapter 1 of Title III sets the classification rules and identifies two main categories of high-risk AI systems: ·AI systems intended to be used as safety component of products that are subject to third party ex-ante conformity assessment; ·other stand-alone AI systems with mainly fundamental rights implications that are explicitly listed in Annex III. This list of high-risk AI systems in Annex III contains a limited number of AI systems whose risks have already materialised or are likely to materialise in the near future. To ensure that the regulation can be adjusted to emerging uses and applications of AI, the Commission may expand the list of high-risk AI systems used within certain pre-defined areas, by applying a set of criteria and risk assessment methodology. Chapter 2 sets out the legal requirements for high-risk AI systems in relation to data and data governance, documentation and recording keeping, transparency and provision of information to users, human oversight, robustness, accuracy and security. The proposed minimum requirements are already state-of-the-art for many diligent operators and the result of two years of preparatory work, derived from the Ethics Guidelines of the HLEG, piloted by more than 350 organisations. They are also largely consistent with other international recommendations and principles, which ensures that the proposed AI framework is compatible with those adopted by the EU’s international trade partners. The precise technical solutions to achieve compliance with those requirements may be provided by standards or by other technical specifications or otherwise be developed in accordance with general engineering or scientific knowledge at the discretion of the provider of the AI system. This flexibility is particularly important, because it allows providers of AI systems to choose the way to meet their requirements, taking into account the state-of-the-art and technological and scientific progress in this field. Chapter 3 places a clear set of horizontal obligations on providers of high-risk AI systems. Proportionate obligations are also placed on users and other participants across the AI value chain (e.g., importers, distributors, authorized representatives).

Chapter 4 sets the framework for notified bodies to be involved as independent third parties in conformity assessment procedures, while Chapter 5 explains in detail the conformity assessment procedures to be followed for each type of high-risk AI system. The conformity assessment approach aims to minimise the burden for economic operators as well as for notified bodies, whose capacity needs to be progressively ramped up over time. AI systems intended to be used as safety components of products that are regulated under the New Legislative Framework legislation (e.g. machinery, toys, medical devices, etc.) will be subject to the same ex-ante and ex-post compliance and enforcement mechanisms of the products of which they are a component. The key difference is that the ex-ante and ex-post mechanisms will ensure compliance not only with the requirements established by sectorial legislation, but also with the requirements established by this regulation. As regards stand-alone high-risk AI systems that are referred to in Annex III, a new compliance and enforcement system will be established. This follows the model of the New Legislative Framework legislation implemented through internal control checks by the providers with the exception of remote biometric identification systems that would be subject to third party conformity assessment. A comprehensive ex-ante conformity assessment through internal checks, combined with a strong ex-post enforcement, could be an effective and reasonable solution for those systems, given the early phase of the regulatory intervention and the fact the AI sector is very innovative and expertise for auditing is only now being accumulated. An assessment through internal checks for ‘stand-alone’ high-risk AI systems would require a full, effective and properly documented ex ante compliance with all requirements of the regulation and compliance with robust quality and risk management systems and post-market monitoring. After the provider has performed the relevant conformity assessment, it should register those stand-alone high-risk AI systems in an EU database that will be managed by the Commission to increase public transparency and oversight and strengthen ex post supervision by competent authorities. By contrast, for reasons of consistency with the existing product safety legislation, the conformity assessments of AI systems that are safety components of products will follow a system with third party conformity assessment procedures already established under the relevant sectoral product safety legislation. New ex ante re-assessments of the conformity will be needed in case of substantial modifications to the AI systems (and notably changes which go beyond what is pre-determined by the provider in its technical documentation and checked at the moment of the ex-ante conformity assessment). 5.2.4.TRANSPARENCY OBLIGATIONS FOR CERTAIN AI SYSTEMS (TITLE IV) Title IV concerns certain AI systems to take account of the specific risks of manipulation they pose. Transparency obligations will apply for systems that (i) interact with humans, (ii) are used to detect emotions or determine association with (social) categories based on biometric data, or (iii) generate or manipulate content (‘deep fakes’). When persons interact with an AI system or their emotions or characteristics are recognised through automated means, people must be informed of that circumstance. If an AI system is used to generate or manipulate image, audio or video content that appreciably resembles authentic content, there should be an obligation to disclose that the content is generated through automated means, subject to exceptions for legitimate purposes (law enforcement, freedom of expression). This allows persons to make informed choices or step back from a given situation. 5.2.5.MEASURES IN SUPPORT OF INNOVATION (TITLE V) Title V contributes to the objective to create a legal framework that is innovation-friendly, future-proof and resilient to disruption. To that end, it encourages national competent authorities to set up regulatory sandboxes and sets a basic framework in terms of governance, supervision and liability. AI regulatory sandboxes establish a controlled environment to test innovative technologies for a limited time on the basis of a testing plan agreed with the competent authorities. Title V also contains measures to reduce the regulatory burden on SMEs and start-ups. 5.2.6.GOVERNANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION (TITLES VI, VII AND VII) Title VI sets up the governance systems at Union and national level. At Union level, the proposal establishes a European Artificial Intelligence Board (the ‘Board’), composed of representatives from the Member States and the Commission. The Board will facilitate a smooth, effective and harmonised implementation of this regulation by contributing to the effective cooperation of the national supervisory authorities and the Commission and providing advice and expertise to the Commission. It will also collect and share best practices among the Member States. At national level, Member States will have to designate one or more national competent authorities and, among them, the national supervisory authority, for the purpose of supervising the application and implementation of the regulation. The European Data Protection Supervisor will act as the competent authority for the supervision of the Union institutions, agencies and bodies when they fall within the scope of this regulation. Title VII aims to facilitate the monitoring work of the Commission and national authorities through the establishment of an EU-wide database for stand-alone high-risk AI systems with mainly fundamental rights implications. The database will be operated by the Commission and provided with data by the providers of the AI systems, who will be required to register their systems before placing them on the market or otherwise putting them into service. Title VIII sets out the monitoring and reporting obligations for providers of AI systems with regard to post-market monitoring and reporting and investigating on AI-related incidents and malfunctioning. Market surveillance authorities would also control the market and investigate compliance with the obligations and requirements for all high-risk AI systems already placed on the market. Market surveillance authorities would have all powers under Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 on market surveillance. Ex-post enforcement should ensure that once the AI system has been put on the market, public authorities have the powers and resources to intervene in case AI systems generate unexpected risks, which warrant rapid action. They will also monitor compliance of operators with their relevant obligations under the regulation. The proposal does not foresee the automatic creation of any additional bodies or authorities at Member State level. Member States may therefore appoint (and draw upon the expertise of) existing sectorial authorities, who would be entrusted also with the powers to monitor and enforce the provisions of the regulation. All this is without prejudice to the existing system and allocation of powers of ex-post enforcement of obligations regarding fundamental rights in the Member States. When necessary for their mandate, existing supervision and enforcement authorities will also have the power to request and access any documentation maintained following this regulation and, where needed, request market surveillance authorities to organise testing of the high-risk AI system through technical means. 5.2.7.CODES OF CONDUCT (TITLE IX) Title IX creates a framework for the creation of codes of conduct, which aim to encourage providers of non-high-risk AI systems to apply voluntarily the mandatory requirements for high-risk AI systems (as laid out in Title III). Providers of non-high-risk AI systems may create and implement the codes of conduct themselves. Those codes may also include voluntary commitments related, for example, to environmental sustainability, accessibility for persons with disability, stakeholders’ participation in the design and development of AI systems, and diversity of development teams. 5.2.8.FINAL PROVISIONS (TITLES X, XI AND XII) Title X emphasizes the obligation of all parties to respect the confidentiality of information and data and sets out rules for the exchange of information obtained during the implementation of the regulation. Title X also includes measures to ensure the effective implementation of the regulation through effective, proportionate, and dissuasive penalties for infringements of the provisions. Title XI sets out rules for the exercise of delegation and implementing powers. The proposal empowers the Commission to adopt, where appropriate, implementing acts to ensure uniform application of the regulation or delegated acts to update or complement the lists in Annexes I to VII. Title XII contains an obligation for the Commission to assess regularly the need for an update of Annex III and to prepare regular reports on the evaluation and review of the regulation. It also lays down final provisions, including a differentiated transitional period for the initial date of the applicability of the regulation to facilitate the smooth implementation for all parties concerned. 2021/0106 (COD) Proposal for a

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL LAYING DOWN HARMONISED RULES ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ACT) AND AMENDING CERTAIN UNION LEGISLATIVE ACTS THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 16 and 114 thereof, Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission, After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments, Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee, Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions, Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, Whereas: (1)The purpose of this Regulation is to improve the functioning of the internal market by laying down a uniform legal framework in particular for the development, marketing and use of artificial intelligence in conformity with Union values. This Regulation pursues a number of overriding reasons of public interest, such as a high level of protection of health, safety and fundamental rights, and it ensures the free movement of AI-based goods and services cross-border, thus preventing Member States from imposing restrictions on the development, marketing and use of AI systems, unless explicitly authorised by this Regulation. (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. (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. (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. (5)A Union legal framework laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence is therefore needed to foster the development, use and uptake of artificial intelligence in the internal market that at the same time meets a high level of protection of public interests, such as health and safety and the protection of fundamental rights, as recognised and protected by Union law. To achieve that objective, rules regulating the placing on the market and putting into service of certain AI systems should be laid down, thus ensuring the smooth functioning of the internal market and allowing those systems to benefit from the principle of free movement of goods and services. By laying down those rules, this Regulation supports the objective of the Union of being a global leader in the development of secure, trustworthy and ethical artificial intelligence, as stated by the European Council, and it ensures the protection of ethical principles, as specifically requested by the European Parliament. (6)The notion of AI system should be clearly defined to ensure legal certainty, while providing the flexibility to accommodate future technological developments. The definition should be based on the key functional characteristics of the software, in particular the ability, for a given set of human-defined objectives, to generate outputs such as content, predictions, recommendations, or decisions which influence the environment with which the system interacts, be it in a physical or digital dimension. AI systems can be designed to operate with varying levels of autonomy and be used on a stand-alone basis or as a component of a product, irrespective of whether the system is physically integrated into the product (embedded) or serve the functionality of the product without being integrated therein (non-embedded). The definition of AI system should be complemented by a list of specific techniques and approaches used for its development, which should be kept up-to–date in the light of market and technological developments through the adoption of delegated acts by the Commission to amend that list. (7)The notion of biometric data used in this Regulation is in line with and should be interpreted consistently with the notion of biometric data as defined in Article 4(14) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Article 3(18) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 3(13) of Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council. (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. (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. (10)In order to ensure a level playing field and an effective protection of rights and freedoms of individuals across the Union, the rules established by this Regulation should apply to providers of AI systems in a non-discriminatory manner, irrespective of whether they are established within the Union or in a third country, and to users of AI systems established within the Union.

(11)In light of their digital nature, certain AI systems should fall within the scope of this Regulation even when they are neither placed on the market, nor put into service, nor used in the Union. This is the case for example of an operator established in the Union that contracts certain services to an operator established outside the Union in relation to an activity to be performed by an AI system that would qualify as high-risk and whose effects impact natural persons located in the Union. In those circumstances, the AI system used by the operator outside the Union could process data lawfully collected in and transferred from the Union, and provide to the contracting operator in the Union the output of that AI system resulting from that processing, without that AI system being placed on the market, put into service or used in the Union. To prevent the circumvention of this Regulation and to ensure an effective protection of natural persons located in the Union, this Regulation should also apply to providers and users of AI systems that are established in a third country, to the extent the output produced by those systems is used in the Union. Nonetheless, to take into account existing arrangements and special needs for cooperation with foreign partners with whom information and evidence is exchanged, this Regulation should not apply to public authorities of a third country and international organisations when acting in the framework of international agreements concluded at national or European level for law enforcement and judicial cooperation with the Union or with its Member States. Such agreements have been concluded bilaterally between Member States and third countries or between the European Union, Europol and other EU agencies and third countries and international organisations. (12)This Regulation should also apply to Union institutions, offices, bodies and agencies when acting as a provider or user of an AI system. AI systems exclusively developed or used for military purposes should be excluded from the scope of this Regulation where that use falls under the exclusive remit of the Common Foreign and Security Policy regulated under Title V of the Treaty on the European Union (TEU). This Regulation should be without prejudice to the provisions regarding the liability of intermediary service providers set out in Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council [as amended by the Digital Services Act]. (13)In order to ensure a consistent and high level of protection of public interests as regards health, safety and fundamental rights, common normative standards for all high-risk AI systems should be established. Those standards should be consistent with the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union (the Charter) and should be non-discriminatory and in line with the Union’s international trade commitments. (14)In order to introduce a proportionate and effective set of binding rules for AI systems, a clearly defined risk-based approach should be followed. That approach should tailor the type and content of such rules to the intensity and scope of the risks that AI systems can generate. It is therefore necessary to prohibit certain artificial intelligence practices, to lay down requirements for high-risk AI systems and obligations for the relevant operators, and to lay down transparency obligations for certain AI systems. (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. (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. (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. (18)The use of AI systems for ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification of natural persons in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement is considered particularly intrusive in the rights and freedoms of the concerned persons, to the extent that it may affect the private life of a large part of the population, evoke a feeling of constant surveillance and indirectly dissuade the exercise of the freedom of assembly and other fundamental rights. In addition, the immediacy of the impact and the limited opportunities for further checks or corrections in relation to the use of such systems operating in ‘real-time’ carry heightened risks for the rights and freedoms of the persons that are concerned by law enforcement activities. (19)The use of those systems for the purpose of law enforcement should therefore be prohibited, except in three exhaustively listed and narrowly defined situations, where the use is strictly necessary to achieve a substantial public interest, the importance of which outweighs the risks. Those situations involve the search for potential victims of crime, including missing children; certain threats to the life or physical safety of natural persons or of a terrorist attack; and the detection, localisation, identification or prosecution of perpetrators or suspects of the criminal offences referred to in Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA if those criminal offences are punishable in the Member State concerned by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least three years and as they are defined in the law of that Member State. Such threshold for the custodial sentence or detention order in accordance with national law contributes to ensure that the offence should be serious enough to potentially justify the use of ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems. Moreover, of the 32 criminal offences listed in the Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, some are in practice likely to be more relevant than others, in that the recourse to ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification will foreseeably be necessary and proportionate to highly varying degrees for the practical pursuit of the detection, localisation, identification or prosecution of a perpetrator or suspect of the different criminal offences listed and having regard to the likely differences in the seriousness, probability and scale of the harm or possible negative consequences. (20)In order to ensure that those systems are used in a responsible and proportionate manner, it is also important to establish that, in each of those three exhaustively listed and narrowly defined situations, certain elements should be taken into account, in particular as regards the nature of the situation giving rise to the request and the consequences of the use for the rights and freedoms of all persons concerned and the safeguards and conditions provided for with the use. In addition, the use of ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement should be subject to appropriate limits in time and space, having regard in particular to the evidence or indications regarding the threats, the victims or perpetrator. The reference database of persons should be appropriate for each use case in each of the three situations mentioned above. (21)Each use of a ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification system in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement should be subject to an express and specific authorisation by a judicial authority or by an independent administrative authority of a Member State. Such authorisation should in principle be obtained prior to the use, except in duly justified situations of urgency, that is, situations where the need to use the systems in question is such as to make it effectively and objectively impossible to obtain an authorisation before commencing the use. In such situations of urgency, the use should be restricted to the absolute minimum necessary and be subject to appropriate safeguards and conditions, as determined in national law and specified in the context of each individual urgent use case by the law enforcement authority itself. In addition, the law enforcement authority should in such situations seek to obtain an authorisation as soon as possible, whilst providing the reasons for not having been able to request it earlier. (22)Furthermore, it is appropriate to provide, within the exhaustive framework set by this Regulation that such use in the territory of a Member State in accordance with this Regulation should only be possible where and in as far as the Member State in question has decided to expressly provide for the possibility to authorise such use in its detailed rules of national law. Consequently, Member States remain free under this Regulation not to provide for such a possibility at all or to only provide for such a possibility in respect of some of the objectives capable of justifying authorised use identified in this Regulation. (23)The use of AI systems for ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification of natural persons in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement necessarily involves the processing of biometric data. The rules of this Regulation that prohibit, subject to certain exceptions, such use, which are based on Article 16 TFEU, should apply as lex specialis in respect of the rules on the processing of biometric data contained in Article 10 of Directive (EU) 2016/680, thus regulating such use and the processing of biometric data involved in an exhaustive manner. Therefore, such use and processing should only be possible in as far as it is compatible with the framework set by this Regulation, without there being scope, outside that framework, for the competent authorities, where they act for purpose of law enforcement, to use such systems and process such data in connection thereto on the grounds listed in Article 10 of Directive (EU) 2016/680. In this context, this Regulation is not intended to provide the legal basis for the processing of personal data under Article 8 of Directive 2016/680. However, the use of ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for purposes other than law enforcement, including by competent authorities, should not be covered by the specific framework regarding such use for the purpose of law enforcement set by this Regulation. Such use for purposes other than law enforcement should therefore not be subject to the requirement of an authorisation under this Regulation and the applicable detailed rules of national law that may give effect to it. (24)Any processing of biometric data and other personal data involved in the use of AI systems for biometric identification, other than in connection to the use of ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement as regulated by this Regulation, including where those systems are used by competent authorities in publicly accessible spaces for other purposes than law enforcement, should continue to comply with all requirements resulting from Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 10(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 and Article 10 of Directive (EU) 2016/680, as applicable. (25)In accordance with Article 6a of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, as annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, Ireland is not bound by the rules laid down in Article 5(1), point (d), (2) and (3) of this Regulation adopted on the basis of Article 16 of the TFEU which relate to the processing of personal data by the Member States when carrying out activities falling within the scope of Chapter 4 or Chapter 5 of Title V of Part Three of the TFEU, where Ireland is not bound by the rules governing the forms of judicial cooperation in criminal matters or police cooperation which require compliance with the provisions laid down on the basis of Article 16 of the TFEU. (26)In accordance with Articles 2 and 2a of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark, annexed to the TEU and TFEU, Denmark is not bound by rules laid down in Article 5(1), point (d), (2) and (3) of this Regulation adopted on the basis of Article 16 of the TFEU, or subject to their application, which relate to the processing of personal data by the Member States when carrying out activities falling within the scope of Chapter 4 or Chapter 5 of Title V of Part Three of the TFEU. (27)High-risk AI systems should only be placed on the Union market or put into service if they comply with certain mandatory requirements. Those requirements should ensure that high-risk AI systems available in the Union or whose output is otherwise used in the Union do not pose unacceptable risks to important Union public interests as recognised and protected by Union law. AI systems identified as high-risk should be limited to those that have a significant harmful impact on the health, safety and fundamental rights of persons in the Union and such limitation minimises any potential restriction to international trade, if any. (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. (29)As regards high-risk AI systems that are safety components of products or systems, or which are themselves products or systems falling within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Regulation (EU) No 167/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Regulation (EU) No 168/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Directive 2014/90/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, Directive (EU) 2016/797 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Regulation (EU) 2018/858 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and Regulation (EU) 2019/2144 of the European Parliament and of the Council, it is appropriate to amend those acts to ensure that the Commission takes into account, on the basis of the technical and regulatory specificities of each sector, and without interfering with existing governance, conformity assessment and enforcement mechanisms and authorities established therein, the mandatory requirements for high-risk AI systems laid down in this Regulation when adopting any relevant future delegated or implementing acts on the basis of those acts. (30)As regards AI systems that are safety components of products, or which are themselves products, falling within the scope of certain Union harmonisation legislation, it is appropriate to classify them as high-risk under this Regulation if the product in question undergoes the conformity assessment procedure with a third-party conformity assessment body pursuant to that relevant Union harmonisation legislation. In particular, such products are machinery, toys, lifts, equipment and protective systems intended for use in potentially explosive atmospheres, radio equipment, pressure equipment, recreational craft equipment, cableway installations, appliances burning gaseous fuels, medical devices, and in vitro diagnostic medical devices.

(31)The classification of an AI system as high-risk pursuant to this Regulation should not necessarily mean that the product whose safety component is the AI system, or the AI system itself as a product, is considered ‘high-risk’ under the criteria established in the relevant Union harmonisation legislation that applies to the product. This is notably the case for Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EU) 2017/746 of the European Parliament and of the Council, where a third-party conformity assessment is provided for medium-risk and high-risk products. (32)As regards stand-alone AI systems, meaning high-risk AI systems other than those that are safety components of products, or which are themselves products, it is appropriate to classify them as high-risk if, in the light of their intended purpose, they pose a high risk of harm to the health and safety or the fundamental rights of persons, taking into account both the severity of the possible harm and its probability of occurrence and they are used in a number of specifically pre-defined areas specified in the Regulation. The identification of those systems is based on the same methodology and criteria envisaged also for any future amendments of the list of high-risk AI systems. (33)Technical inaccuracies of AI systems intended for the remote biometric identification of natural persons can lead to biased results and entail discriminatory effects. This is particularly relevant when it comes to age, ethnicity, sex or disabilities. Therefore, ‘real-time’ and ‘post’ remote biometric identification systems should be classified as high-risk. In view of the risks that they pose, both types of remote biometric identification systems should be subject to specific requirements on logging capabilities and human oversight. (34)As regards the management and operation of critical infrastructure, it is appropriate to classify as high-risk the 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, since their failure or malfunctioning may put at risk the life and health of persons at large scale and lead to appreciable disruptions in the ordinary conduct of social and economic activities. (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. (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. (37)Another area in which the use of AI systems deserves special consideration is the access to and enjoyment of certain essential private and public services and benefits necessary for people to fully participate in society or to improve one’s standard of living. In particular, AI systems used to evaluate the credit score or creditworthiness of natural persons should be classified as high-risk AI systems, since they determine those persons’ access to financial resources or essential services such as housing, electricity, and telecommunication services. AI systems used for this purpose may lead to discrimination of persons or groups and perpetuate historical patterns of discrimination, for example based on racial or ethnic origins, disabilities, age, sexual orientation, or create new forms of discriminatory impacts. Considering the very limited scale of the impact and the available alternatives on the market, it is appropriate to exempt AI systems for the purpose of creditworthiness assessment and credit scoring when put into service by small-scale providers for their own use. Natural persons applying for or receiving public assistance benefits and services from public authorities are typically dependent on those benefits and services and in a vulnerable position in relation to the responsible authorities. If AI systems are used for determining whether such benefits and services should be denied, reduced, revoked or reclaimed by authorities, they may have a significant impact on persons’ livelihood and may infringe their fundamental rights, such as the right to social protection, non-discrimination, human dignity or an effective remedy. Those systems should therefore be classified as high-risk. Nonetheless, this Regulation should not hamper the development and use of innovative approaches in the public administration, which would stand to benefit from a wider use of compliant and safe AI systems, provided that those systems do not entail a high risk to legal and natural persons. Finally, AI systems used to dispatch or establish priority in the dispatching of emergency first response services should also be classified as high-risk since they make decisions in very critical situations for the life and health of persons and their property. (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. (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 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. (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. (42)To mitigate the risks from high-risk AI systems placed or otherwise put into service on the Union market for users and affected persons, certain mandatory requirements should apply, taking into account the intended purpose of the use of the system and according to the risk management system to be established by the provider. (43)Requirements should apply to high-risk AI systems as regards the quality of data sets used, technical documentation and record-keeping, transparency and the provision of information to users, human oversight, and robustness, accuracy and cybersecurity. Those requirements are necessary to effectively mitigate the risks for health, safety and fundamental rights, as applicable in the light of the intended purpose of the system, and no other less trade restrictive measures are reasonably available, thus avoiding unjustified restrictions to trade. (44)High data quality is essential for the performance of many AI systems, especially when techniques involving the training of models are used, with a view to ensure that the high-risk AI system performs as intended and safely and it does not become the source of discrimination prohibited by Union law. High quality training, validation and testing data sets require the implementation of appropriate data governance and management practices. Training, validation and testing data sets should be sufficiently relevant, representative and free of errors and complete in view of the intended purpose of the system. They should also have the appropriate statistical properties, including as regards the persons or groups of persons on which the high-risk AI system is intended to be used. In particular, training, validation and testing data sets should take into account, to the extent required in the light of their intended purpose, the features, characteristics or elements that are particular to the specific geographical, behavioural or functional setting or context within which the AI system is intended to be used. In order to protect the right of others from the discrimination that might result from the bias in AI systems, the providers shouldbe able to process also special categories of personal data, as a matter of substantial public interest, in order to ensure the bias monitoring, detection and correction in relation to high-risk AI systems. (45)For the development of high-risk AI systems, certain actors, such as providers, notified bodies and other relevant entities, such as digital innovation hubs, testing experimentation facilities and researchers, should be able to access and use high quality datasets within their respective fields of activities which are related to this Regulation. European common data spaces established by the Commission and the facilitation of data sharing between businesses and with government in the public interest will be instrumental to provide trustful, accountable and non-discriminatory access to high quality data for the training, validation and testing of AI systems. For example, in health, the European health data space will facilitate non-discriminatory access to health data and the training of artificial intelligence algorithms on those datasets, in a privacy-preserving, secure, timely, transparent and trustworthy manner, and with an appropriate institutional governance. Relevant competent authorities, including sectoral ones, providing or supporting the access to data may also support the provision of high-quality data for the training, validation and testing of AI systems. (46)Having information on how high-risk AI systems have been developed and how they perform throughout their lifecycle is essential to verify compliance with the requirements under this Regulation. This requires keeping records and the availability of a technical documentation, containing information which is necessary to assess the compliance of the AI system with the relevant requirements. Such information should include the general characteristics, capabilities and limitations of the system, algorithms, data, training, testing and validation processes used as well as documentation on the relevant risk management system. The technical documentation should be kept up to date. (47)To address the opacity that may make certain AI systems incomprehensible to or too complex for natural persons, a certain degree of transparency should be required for high-risk AI systems. Users should be able to interpret the system output and use it appropriately. High-risk AI systems should therefore be accompanied by relevant documen