Up nextGis bi ci topp
EU AI Act Implementation Timeline
Askan wi
GUIDE Sosiete
The AI Act’s conformity-assessment and CE-marking duties concern high-risk AI systems, not every AI product.
The required route depends on whether the system falls under Annex III or is safety-related AI in regulated products, and on applicable standards, common specifications and product legislation.
Conformity assessment is the process of demonstrating that a high-risk AI system meets the Act’s requirements. The provider is responsible for classifying, documenting and assessing the system before placing it on the market or putting it into service. The AI Act does not require CE marking for all AI tools; the duties discussed here attach to high-risk AI systems, which may also be subject to other EU product rules. For Annex III point 1, Article 43 allows internal control or notified-body assessment when relevant standards or common specifications are applied. Annex VII is required if neither standards exist nor common specifications are available; the standard is not applied or only partly applied; available specifications are not applied; or an applied standard has a restriction, only for that restricted part. Points 2–8 use Annex VI internal control. For Annex I products, Article 43(3) integrates Section 2 and Article 17 quality-management requirements into the sector procedure. A sectoral no-third-party option conditioned on standards covering all sector requirements is allowed only if standards or Article 41 common specifications also cover all Section 2 requirements. After assessment, the provider draws up an EU declaration of conformity, assumes responsibility for conformity, and affixes CE marking visibly and indelibly, or to packaging or documentation if the system’s nature makes that appropriate. Digitally provided systems may use a digital mark if readily accessible. A notified-body identification number accompanies the CE mark when applicable. The CE mark signals conformity with applicable requirements; it is not a quality award or general guarantee. Substantial modifications can trigger a new assessment, while predetermined changes documented in the original assessment are treated differently.
Gaañ-gaañu IA yu mag yi ak yu bës bu nekk yépp a ngi aju ci ki xam risk yi ak ki mëna def dara.
Liggéeyukaay ak xam-xam bu ñépp bokk mooy wane ndax politiku kaaraange bu dëgër mën na am ci wàllu politik.
Faram-fàcce yu leer dañuy wàññi li ñuy jàpp ci hype, PR lab, ak tiyaatar bu leerul.
The legal framework anticipates harmonised standards, common specifications and notified bodies as parts of implementation, and Regulation 2026/1744 extended high-risk application dates. Technical standards and designation details may change, so providers should verify official Commission and EUR-Lex publications when selecting a route. Voluntary standards assist compliance but do not replace the regulation. Providers should monitor Commission publications on standards and conformity procedures before each launch. A change to intended purpose or system design can affect both classification and assessment, so maintain a controlled change log.
A provider classifies an Annex III system, completes the applicable conformity route, signs the EU declaration of conformity and affixes CE marking before market placement.
An Annex III point 1 system uses harmonised standards and chooses internal control or the specified notified-body route as the Act permits.
A high-risk system in an Annex I regulated product follows that sector’s conformity procedure with AI Act requirements integrated.
A software provider checks whether a digital CE mark is easily accessible from the system interface or through a machine-readable means.
Jàppale risku nekk gi ni siyaas fiksioŋ fekk kàttan gi dafay yokk.
Jaxasoo kaaraange produit surface ak jubluwaay ci suufu autonomie bu kawe.
Bàyyi nit ñi xamul làkku Àngle ak ñi xamul làkku Angale, ñu am balluwaay yu baaxul.
Tàqale loraange yi ci produit bi, jëfandikoo bu baaxul, ak risku ñàkka mëna yor / ñàkka méngoo.
Laajteel ban firnde mooy soppi sa xalaat ci kalendriye yi ak tar gi.
Danga taamu balluwaay yu njëkk yi ak jàngat yu fëgër yi moo gën waxtaanu njaay mi.
Xaarandil benn yoonu jëf: liggéey, politik, xaalis, wala xam-xam — du xam-xam kese.
Free newsletter
Three verified AI stories every weekday morning, written in plain English. Free forever, no ads.
One email each weekday. Unsubscribe in one click. We never sell or share your address.
Test yourself
Instant feedback on every answer, and a shareable certificate with a verifiable ID once you pass a course.
Support free AI education. AI Understanding is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit — no ads, no paywall, ever. Make a donation
The AI Act’s conformity-assessment and CE-marking duties concern high-risk AI systems, not every AI product. The required route depends on whether the system falls under Annex III or is safety-related AI in regulated products, and on applicable standards, common specifications and product legislation.
The conformity and CE provisions apply to high-risk AI systems, not every AI tool.
Article 43(2) specifies internal control for these categories.
Article 43(1) permits the choice where standards or common specifications have been applied.
Article 43(1)(a) and (b) require Annex VII when both standards and common specifications are unavailable, or when a provider has not applied or has applied only part of a relevant harmonised standard.
Article 43(3) applies the sectoral conformity route and integrates the AI Act requirements.
Weyal di jàng
Tann nañu yeneen njiit ngir topic bii
Up nextGis bi ci topp
EU AI Act Implementation Timeline
Askan wi