European Parliament legislative resolution of 14 June 2023 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Partnership and Cooperation between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Thailand, of the other part (11908/2022 – C9-0429/2022 – 2022/0252(NLE))

P9_TA(2023)0231 A9-0191/2023

(Consent)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the draft Council decision (11908/2022),

–  having regard to the draft Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Partnership and Cooperation between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Thailand, of the other part(1),

–  having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 209 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(iii) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9‑0429/2022),

–  having regard to its non-legislative resolution of 14 June 2023(2) on the draft decision,

–  having regard to Rule 105(1) and (4) and Rule 114(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A9-0191/2023),

1.  Gives its consent to the conclusion of the agreement;

2.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Kingdom of Thailand.

(1) OJ L 330, 23.12.2022, p. 72. (2) Texts adopted, P9_TA(2023)0232.

European Parliament non-legislative resolution of 14 June 2023 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Partnership and Cooperation between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Thailand, of the other part (11908/2022 – C9-0429/2022 – 2022/0252M(NLE))

P9_TA(2023)0232 A9-0193/2023

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the draft Council decision (11908/2022),

–  having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 209 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(iii) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9-0429/2022),

–  having regard to the draft Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Partnership and Cooperation between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Thailand, of the other part(1),

–  having regard to the joint communications of the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of 16 September 2021 entitled ‘The EU strategy for cooperation in the Indo-Pacific’ (JOIN(2021)0024) and of 1 December 2021 entitled ‘The Global Gateway’ (JOIN(2021)0030),

–  having regard to its resolutions of 7 June 2022 on the EU and the security challenges in the Indo-Pacific(2) and of 5 July 2022 on the Indo-Pacific strategy in the area of trade and investment(3),

–  having regard to the joint leaders’ statement agreed at the EU-ASEAN commemorative summit held in Brussels on 14 December 2022,

–  having regard to its resolution of 3 October 2017 on EU political relations with ASEAN(4),

–  having regard to the Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand – member countries of the Association of South-East Asian Nations, signed on 7 March 1980, which constitutes the legal framework for EU-ASEAN relations(5),

–  having regard to its resolutions of 8 October 2015 on the situation in Thailand(6) and of 6 October 2016 on Thailand, notably the situation of Andy Hall(7),

–  having regard to the Council conclusions of 14 October 2019 on Thailand,

–  having regard to the 12th EU-Thailand Inter-parliamentary meeting, held remotely on 8 December 2022,

–  having regard to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol,

–  having regard to the conventions of the International Labour Organization (ILO),

–  having regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966, to which Thailand is a state party,

–  having regard to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 15 December 1989, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty,

–  having regard to the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance of 23 December 2010,

–  having regard to the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 10 December 1984 and its Optional Protocol,

–  having regard to the Convention on the Rights of the Child,

–  having regard to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court of 17 July 1998,

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 22 June 2022 entitled ‘The power of trade partnerships: together for green and just economic growth’ (COM(2022)0409),

–  having regard to Rule 105(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the letter from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A9-0193/2023),

A.  whereas the Indo-Pacific region is home to increasingly important political, trade and security partners for the EU, including Thailand; whereas a free, connected and stable Indo-Pacific region based on rules and respect for international law, in line with European principles and standards, is highly desirable for the EU’s security and interests;

B.  whereas Thailand is a founding member of ASEAN; whereas the first-ever summit between the leaders of EU and ASEAN member states, which took place on 14 December 2022, marked 45 years of diplomatic relations between the EU and ASEAN and reconfirmed their mutual commitment to their strategic partnership;

C.  whereas EU-Thailand relations are built on long-standing political, economic and cultural ties;

D.  whereas the EU and Thailand’s current cooperation is based on the 1980 EU-ASEAN Cooperation Agreement;

E.  whereas in 2004, the Council authorised the Commission to negotiate an individual partnership and cooperation agreement (PCA) with Thailand;

F.  whereas the EU and Thailand completed negotiations on a PCA in March 2013, but the military coup in Thailand in 2014 halted the process and consequently delayed the election of a civilian government until 2019;

G.  whereas following the March 2019 elections in Thailand, the Council stated in its October 2019 conclusions that it was appropriate for the EU to take steps towards broadening its engagement with Thailand by preparing for the timely signature of the PCA;

H.  whereas the renewed negotiations on the PCA concluded on 11 June 2022;

I.  whereas Thailand is both highly vulnerable to climate change and a relatively major producer of global emissions; whereas at the 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26), Thailand pledged to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050;

J.  whereas the EU and Thailand aim to establish a modern, broad and mutually beneficial partnership, based on shared interests and principles; whereas they reaffirm through the PCA their respect for democratic principles, human rights and fundamental freedoms, as laid down in the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948;

K.  whereas Thailand was among the first countries to sign the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but its overall human rights record remains problematic;

L.  whereas Thailand ranked 79th in the 2021 Gender Inequality Index and Thai women continue to be strongly under-represented in employment and politics, although the country has seen a reverse gender gap in higher education, being ranked first in the world for the ratio of female-to-male students;

M.  whereas the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances has recorded 76 outstanding cases of enforced disappearances in Thailand;

N.  whereas the death penalty continues to be applied in Thailand, even though the country’s fourth National Human Rights Plan (2019-2023) contains a commitment to moving towards the abolition of capital punishment; whereas Thailand is not a signatory to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty;

O.  whereas Thailand is not a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol, and lacks a domestic legal framework to specifically recognise and provide protection to refugees, notably those from Myanmar, who are routinely either confined to camps or face arbitrary arrest, detention or forcible deportation back to their country of origin, in violation of the right to asylum and the principle of non-refoulement;

P.  whereas the Thai Government has recently restricted fundamental rights, particularly the rights to free expression and assembly, including by arbitrarily arresting pro-democracy activists and opposition leaders, and in 2022 it introduced a draft law to tightly control all civil society organisations;

Q.  whereas Thailand has not yet ratified fundamental ILO conventions, particularly the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention; whereas in practice, union leaders and workers often face criminal charges or are dismissed for their union activity; whereas the more than two million migrant workers in the country are discriminated against and do not enjoy the same labour rights as local workers, including the right to organise;

R.  whereas more than half of the world’s fishing vessels operate in the South China Sea, which alone accounts for around 12 % of the world’s fishing; whereas the EU is engaged in dialogue with Thailand and has set up a working group on illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing in the country; whereas despite government-instituted reforms in the fishing industry, many migrant workers in Thailand continue to be subjected to forced labour;

S.  whereas Thailand is the world’s leading producer of canned tuna and the EU’s chief competitor in this sector; whereas a free trade agreement with Thailand could pose a serious threat to the EU canned fish and seafood industry, which is of crucial importance to a number of coastal regions because of its leading role in generating wealth and employment and in providing labour-intensive jobs for women;

T.  whereas the EU and the ASEAN region are each other’s third-largest trading partners, whereas the EU is Thailand’s fourth-largest trading partner and the second-largest investor in Thailand;

U.  whereas negotiations between the EU and Thailand on a bilateral free trade agreement (FTA) commenced in 2013, but the EU put the negotiations on hold in 2014; whereas the EU and Thailand relaunched the negotiations on 15 March 2023;

EU engagement in the Indo-Pacific region

1.  Highlights the fact that Thailand is an important partner in the Indo-Pacific region, which has become one of the EU’s geopolitical priorities;

2.  Underlines the EU’s commitment to a free, open and rules-based Indo-Pacific region; reiterates that the EU’s new Indo-Pacific strategy needs to be implemented swiftly to give the EU’s partners in the region the opportunity to address common challenges together, to defend the rules-based international order and to stand up for shared EU-ASEAN values and principles; advocates for stronger cooperation with countries in the region, including in particular with ASEAN countries;

3.  Reiterates the political significance of strong bilateral relations, based on shared values and principles, between ASEAN and the EU in general, and between Thailand and the EU in particular; welcomes the December 2022 EU-ASEAN summit and the commitment to further deepening this strategic partnership;

4.  Reiterates its call for the swift implementation of the EU Global Gateway strategy in coordination with the Indo-Pacific strategy; emphasises the geopolitical centrality of this approach, which integrates sustainable development-oriented, transformational, resilience-enhancing and values-based dimensions into a Team Europe approach; welcomes the announcement of a EUR 10 billion financial package to accelerate infrastructure investments in ASEAN countries with the aim of building a new, economically sustainable partnership, in particular with regard to the green transition and sustainable connectivity;

5.  Notes that the ASEAN region is one of the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change; highlights the Green Team Europe initiative to support the green transition in the ASEAN countries; highlights, furthermore, the importance of Thailand’s role as the ASEAN Coordinator on Sustainable Development Cooperation;

6.  Notes that the support of partners in the Indo-Pacific region has been and remains very valuable with regard to voting in the UN General Assembly relating to Russia’s unjustified, unprovoked and illegal war on Ukraine; welcomes the fact that Thailand voted in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions condemning Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and appreciates the humanitarian aid provided by Thailand to Ukraine; encourages Thailand to promote respect for international law, support Ukraine and take a clear stance against the Russian war of aggression also within the framework of ASEAN;

EU-Thailand PCA

7.  Reaffirms the importance that the EU attaches to relations with Thailand; welcomes the conclusion of the PCA, which will provide a legal framework for enhancing long-standing, bilateral political and economic relations and collaboration on issues of global concern and represents an important step towards strengthening the EU’s role in the Indo-Pacific region;

8.  Notes that the PCA is a comprehensive and modern agreement and will make it possible to move towards new models of sustainable growth and development and better respond to current challenges in a wide number of policy areas, including the environment, energy, climate change, transport, science and technology, trade, employment and social affairs, human rights, education, agriculture, migration, culture, nuclear non-proliferation, counterterrorism, and the fight against corruption and organised crime;

9.  Expresses hope that the conclusion of the PCA will provide a strong impetus for greater cooperation between the EU and Thailand for the benefit of all EU and Thai citizens, residents, businesses and other stakeholders; calls for visa-free travel to Thailand for all EU citizens; supports working towards a visa-free regime for travel to the EU for Thai citizens;

10.  Welcomes Thailand’s adoption of a National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights, which made it the first country in the Asia-Pacific region to incorporate such a plan, and calls for its effective implementation;

11.  Calls on the parties to commit to supporting the implementation and enforcement of domestic legislation on corporate due diligence and corporate accountability, to agree on more specific obligations in light of sustainable impact assessments, to exchange relevant information, such as on the number of investigations, checks and enforcement actions, and to provide training or technical assistance to companies on corporate due diligence and corporate accountability;

12.  Highlights the fact that the parties agree to cooperate in areas of mutual interest in all fields of science, technology and innovation; welcomes the signing of an administrative arrangement on 9 September 2022 for collaboration between the EU and Thailand on frontier research;

13.  Stresses the parties’ common objective of strengthening the global response to climate change and its impact and enhancing cooperation on policies to help mitigate climate change in accordance with the Paris Agreement; highlights the parties’ commitments to effectively implementing the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement;

14.  Highlights that Thailand is the world’s ninth most affected country with regard to climate change; welcomes the fact that, at COP26, Thailand pledged to enhance its nationally determined contribution with the aim of decreasing its greenhouse gas emissions by 30 % by 2030; welcomes, in this regard, the country’s adoption in 2022 of a revised long-term low greenhouse gas emission development strategy;

15.  Emphasises the parties’ endeavour to enhance cooperation in the energy sector, including on access to affordable and sustainable energy services, developing sustainable and renewable forms of energy and promoting low-carbon power generation that contributes to a clean energy transition; encourages both parties to step up efforts to tackle the effects of climate change by adopting and implementing more effective climate policies on the energy transition and decarbonisation;

16.  Highlights that Thailand faces increasing environmental degradation in many regions, including the loss of biodiversity and declining wildlife populations, deforestation, desertification, water scarcity, and air and water pollution; urges the parties to cooperate to address these challenges;

17.  Welcomes the inclusion in the PCA of provisions on cooperation on sustainable food systems; stresses that the agriculture sector has important sensitivities for both Thailand and the EU;

18.  Considers that the EU should maintain its commitment to sustainable fishing in the Indo-Pacific and strengthen its cooperation with Thailand on combating overfishing, overcapacity and IUU fishing in the Indo-Pacific;

19.  Urges the Commission once again to bear in mind that a bilateral free trade agreement between the EU and Thailand must be preceded by rigorous sustainability impact studies and a detailed analysis of the potential economic, social and environmental repercussions;

20.  Urges the Commission once again to include canned fish and seafood as ‘sensitive products’ for the purposes of possible trade negotiations with Thailand;

21.  Welcomes the fact that the PCA supports people-to-people exchanges, such as academic mobility under the Erasmus+ programme, and exchanges of best practice in youth policies and youth work;

22.  Welcomes the fact that the PCA supports cooperation on promoting gender equality and women’s empowerment; welcomes Thailand’s legislation for the advancement of women’s rights, including the adoption of the 2015 Gender Equality Act; calls on the Thai authorities to step up their implementation efforts, as well as efforts to combat gender-based violence and empower women and girls, particularly migrant women, women from rural areas and women belonging to minorities, in line with Article 21 of the PCA;

23.  Stresses that Article 1(1) of the PCA provides that human rights and respect for democratic principles, the rule of law and good governance constitute essential elements of the PCA;

24.  Expresses its concerns about the violent crackdowns against peaceful protesters in Thailand in 2020 and 2021; calls on the Thai authorities to investigate the human rights abuses committed against the protesters; urges the Thai authorities to release those prisoners who have been arbitrarily detained for exercising their right to peaceful assembly;

25.  Calls on the Thai Government to respect the role of civil society organisations, human rights defenders, democracy defenders, civil society activists, journalists and others, to ensure freedom of expression and assembly, to review the country’s lese-majesty law and promptly release all individuals arrested under this law, and to review its Draft Act on the Operation of Not-for-Profit Organisations of 2021, its computer crime law and its criminal defamation law, in line with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Thailand has signed and ratified;

26.  Notes the increased protection that the 2015 Gender Equality Act affords to the LGBTI community; calls on Thailand to work on promoting and protecting the LGBTI community’s rights in full;

27.  Is strongly concerned about the unprecedented targeting of children under the lese-majesty law and calls on Thailand to abide by its international obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the country has ratified;

28.  Welcomes Thailand’s passing in 2022 of the Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Act as a critical milestone in combating torture, ill treatment and enforced disappearances in Thailand; regrets the fact that, on 14 February 2023, the Thai Government approved a decree postponing the enforcement of parts of the act from February to October 2023; calls for its swift entry into force and its full and effective implementation; urges Thailand to swiftly ratify the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance;

29.  Reiterates its calls urging Thailand to take concrete steps towards the abolition of the death penalty, including by signing and ratifying the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty; stresses the importance of the joint declaration on Article 23 of the PCA in terms of ensuring that no death sentences are handed down or carried out in the future;

30.  Calls on Thailand to sign and ratify the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol; urges the Thai authorities to immediately put a halt to the deportations of ethnic Rohingya and Uyghurs and other asylum seekers, which are in blatant violation of fundamental international obligations that are binding on Thailand, particularly the principle of non-refoulement; welcomes the EU humanitarian aid programmes providing protection services and healthcare assistance to Rohingya refugees living in refugee camps in the country;

31.  Acknowledges the efforts made by the Thai Government to tackle human rights abuses relating to trafficking and forced labour; remains, however, concerned about the labour conditions of migrant workers;

32.  Welcomes the parties’ agreement to cooperate and provide technical assistance with a view to working towards the ratification and implementation of the fundamental ILO conventions; calls on Thailand to ratify ILO Conventions Nos 87, 98 and 155, to effectively guarantee workers’ rights to organise and strike and to recognise the same rights for all workers, regardless of their country of origin, as well as to cooperate with the EU on promoting the ratification and implementation of other more recent ILO conventions;

33.  Encourages Thailand to ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in line with Article 5 of the PCA and the joint declaration regarding that article;

34.  Recalls that if either party considers that the other has failed to fulfil any of its obligations under the PCA, notably with regard to its essential elements, it may take appropriate measures, including suspending the PCA;

35.  Notes that in the relaunched FTA negotiations, the Commission aims to boost trade and investment by addressing market access for goods, services, investment and government procurement; swift and effective sanitary and phytosanitary procedures; the protection of intellectual property rights; and the removal of obstacles to digital trade and trade in energy and raw materials, while supporting high levels of protection for workers’ rights, the environment and the achievement of ambitious climate goals;

36.  Recalls that Article 1(2) of the PCA confirms the parties’ commitment to promoting sustainable development in all its dimensions, to cooperating in addressing challenges of climate change and globalisation, and to contributing to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; highlights the EU’s new approach in this regard, as outlined in the Commission communication of 22 June 2022 entitled ‘The power of trade partnerships: together for green and just economic growth’;

37.  Stresses that human rights concerns are to be considered during any negotiations with Thailand;

38.  Stresses that EU FTAs include the so-called non-execution clause, providing for the suspension of trade preferences in the event of violations of PCAs’ essential elements;

o
o   o

39.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, and the Government and Parliament of the Kingdom of Thailand.

(1) OJ L 330, 23. 12.2022, p. 72. (2) OJ C 493, 27.12.2022, p. 32. (3) OJ C 47, 7.2.2023, p. 15. (4) OJ C 346, 27.09.2018, p. 44. (5) OJ L 144, 10.6.1980, p. 2. (6) OJ C 349, 17.10.2017, p. 26. (7) OJ C 215, 19.6.2018, p. 37.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 14 June 2023 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Framework Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Government of Malaysia, of the other part (11714/2022 – C9-0430/2022 – 2022/0221(NLE))

P9_TA(2023)0233 A9-0190/2023

(Consent)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the draft Council decision (11714/2022),

–  having regard to the draft Framework Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Government of Malaysia, of the other part (11732/2022),

–  having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 209 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(iii), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9‑0430/2022),

–  having regard to its non-legislative resolution of 14 June 2023(1) on the draft decision,

–  having regard to Rule 105(1) and (4) and Rule 114(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A9-0190/2023),

1.  Gives its consent to the conclusion of the agreement;

2.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of Malaysia.

(1) Texts adopted, P9_TA(2023)0234.

European Parliament non-legislative resolution of 14 June 2023 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Framework Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Government of Malaysia, of the other part (11714/2022 – C9-0430/2022 – 2022/0221M(NLE))

P9_TA(2023)0234 A9-0194/2023

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Framework Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Government of Malaysia, of the other part (11714/2022),

–  having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 209 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(iii) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9‑0430/2022),

–  having regard to the draft Framework Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation (PCA) between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Government of Malaysia, of the other part (11732/2022),

–  having regard to the joint communications of the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of 16 September 2021 entitled ‘the EU strategy for cooperation in the Indo-Pacific’ (JOIN(2021)0024) and of 1 December 2021 entitled ‘the Global Gateway’ (JOIN(2021)0030),

–  having regard to its resolutions of 7 June 2022 on the EU and the security challenges in the Indo-Pacific(1) and of 5 July 2022 on the Indo-Pacific strategy in the area of trade and investment(2),

–  having regard to the joint leaders’ statement agreed at the EU-Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) commemorative summit held in Brussels on 14 December 2022,

–  having regard to its resolution of 3 October 2017 on EU political relations with ASEAN(3),

–  having regard to the Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand – member countries of the Association of South-East Asian Nations, signed on 7 March 1980(4), which constitutes the legal framework for EU-ASEAN relations,

–  having regard to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 15 December 1989, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty,

–  having regard to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 16 December 1966 and its Optional Protocol,

–  having regard to the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 10 December 1984 and its Optional Protocol,

–  having regard to the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance of 23 December 2010,

–  having regard to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol,

–  having regard to the Conventions of the International Labour Organization (ILO Conventions),

–  having regard to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court of 17 July 1998,

–  having regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966 and its Optional Protocol,

–  having regard to its resolutions of 11 September 2013 containing its recommendation to the Council, the Commission and the European External Action Service on the negotiations for an EU-Malaysia partnership and cooperation agreement(5), of 17 December 2015 on Malaysia(6) and of 18 January 2023 on human rights and democracy in the world and the European Union’s policy on the matter – annual report 2022(7),

–  having regard to Rule 105(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the letter from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A9-0194/2023),

A.  whereas the EU and the Indo-Pacific are inextricably linked given the interdependence of their economies and their shared global challenges;

B.  whereas Parliament has expressed a strong commitment to support ASEAN as the central organisation for regional cooperation; whereas Malaysia is a founding member of ASEAN and has played a crucial role in facilitating its overall progress;

C.  whereas in 2022, the EU and ASEAN celebrated their 45th anniversary of diplomatic relations; whereas the EU-ASEAN leaders reiterated in a joint statement issued at the commemorative summit of 14 December 2022 that the EU and ASEAN were strategic partners with a shared interest in a peaceful, stable and prosperous region;

D.  whereas current EU-Malaysia cooperation is based on the 1980 EU-ASEAN Cooperation Agreement; whereas Malaysia has historically been a close partner of the EU;

E.  whereas in 2004, the Council authorised the Commission to negotiate an individual PCA with Malaysia;

F.  whereas the EU and Malaysia started negotiations for a PCA in February 2011 and concluded them on 12 December 2015;

G.  whereas on 5 August 2016, draft Council decisions on the signing and conclusion of the PCA were presented to the Council as an ‘EU-only’ agreement between the European Union and Malaysia; whereas on 17 March 2017, the Committee of the Permanent Representatives of the Governments of the Member States to the European Union took the view that the PCA should be signed and concluded as a ‘mixed’ agreement;

H.  whereas, while Malaysia agreed on the PCA being mixed, it preferred not to apply the agreement provisionally;

I.  whereas the EU and Malaysia signed the PCA on 14 December 2022;

J.  whereas the PCA will strengthen cooperation across a wide spectrum of policy fields, including human rights, the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, counter-terrorism, the fight against corruption and organised crime, trade, migration, the environment, energy, climate change, transport, science and technology, employment and social affairs, education, agriculture and culture;

K.  whereas both parties to the EU-Malaysia PCA have reaffirmed their respect for democratic principles and human rights, as laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in other relevant international human rights instruments; whereas Malaysia’s human rights record remains problematic;

L.  whereas the EU institutions and bodies, including the European External Action Service, must ensure that the human rights obligations of the EU and the Member States are consistently implemented in the EU’s common foreign and security policy;

M.  whereas Malaysia’s new unity government faces steep challenges in pursuing democratic reforms, including in the area of the rule of law, upholding human rights and overcoming deep societal polarisation;

N.  whereas Malaysia’s Sedition Act and Communications and Multimedia Act have been used, in some cases to limit freedom of speech, against members of its Parliament; whereas freedom of expression and assembly in Malaysia are currently under attack, aided by the existence of broad and vaguely worded laws, including the Sedition Act, the Printing Presses and Publications Act, and sections 504 and 505(b) of its Penal Code, which criminalise speech that leads to a breach of ‘public tranquillity’; whereas according to different human rights defenders’ reports, the Malaysian authorities are increasingly using criminal investigations to harass journalists, civil society activists, academics and ordinary citizens using social media;

O.  whereas Malaysia is not a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention; whereas about 185 000 refugees and asylum seekers, including over 100 000 ethnic Rohingya Muslims, are registered with the UN refugee agency (UN High Commissioner for Refugees) but have not been granted legal status; whereas Malaysia has been deporting refugees back to Myanmar, in an apparent violation of the right to asylum and the principle of non-refoulement;

P.  whereas migrant workers constitute approximately 20-30 % of the country’s workforce and are often victims of forced labour and human rights abuses; whereas refugees, asylum seekers and stateless people also face a high risk of forced labour as they are denied access to legal employment due to their unrecognised status; whereas recent evidence has been found of the existence of forced labour and child labour in Malaysia;

Q.  whereas Malaysia is not a signatory to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty;

R.  whereas on 3 April 2023, the Malaysian Parliament approved a bill that would cease the mandatory use of the death penalty and limit capital punishment to serious crimes;

S.  whereas the EU and ASEAN are each other’s third largest trading partners; whereas the EU is Malaysia’s fifth largest trading partner and Malaysia is the EU’s third largest trading partner within ASEAN;

T.  whereas negotiations for a free trade agreement between the EU and Malaysia were launched in 2010 but were put on hold after seven rounds in 2012 at Malaysia’s request;

EU Indo-Pacific strategy and strategic partnership with ASEAN

1.  Notes that the Indo-Pacific region is of increasing strategic significance for Europe; reiterates its support for the EU strategy for cooperation in the Indo-Pacific;

2.  Underlines the EU’s commitment to a free, open and rules-based Indo-Pacific region; reiterates that the EU’s new Indo-Pacific strategy needs to be implemented swiftly to give the EU’s partners in the region the opportunity to address common challenges together, to defend the rules-based international order and to stand up for shared EU-ASEAN values and principles; advocates for stronger cooperation with countries in the region, including in particular with ASEAN countries;

3.  Highlights that ASEAN is a strategic partner for the EU in the Indo-Pacific; welcomes the EU-ASEAN commemorative summit of 14 December 2022; expresses hope that the implementation of the EU-ASEAN joint leaders’ statement will result in stronger cooperation with the Southeast Asian countries and with Malaysia in particular; reiterates the political value of strong bilateral relations between ASEAN and the EU in general, and between Malaysia and the EU in particular;

4.  Reiterates its call for the swift implementation of the EU Global Gateway strategy in coordination with the Indo-Pacific strategy; emphasises the geopolitical centrality of this approach, which integrates sustainable development-oriented, transformational, resilience-enhancing and values-based dimensions into a Team Europe approach; welcomes the announcement of a EUR 10 billion financial package to accelerate infrastructure investments in ASEAN countries, in particular with regard to the green transition and sustainable connectivity;

5.  Welcomes the fact that the EU-ASEAN leaders have reaffirmed their mutual respect for the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity as espoused in the Charter of the United Nations; reiterates that the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine is a blatant violation of international law; welcomes the fact that Malaysia voted in favour of the UN resolutions in support of Ukraine, including the resolution demanding that Russia immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw all of its military forces from the territory of Ukraine within its internationally recognised borders; encourages Malaysia to promote respect for international law, to support Ukraine and to take a clear stance against the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, also within the framework of ASEAN;

6.  Notes that Southeast Asia is among the world’s most at-risk regions in terms of the impact of global warming; looks forward to the convening of the first ASEAN-EU Ministerial Dialogue on Environment and Climate Change in 2023; notes that the discussion on palm oil has been a challenge in EU-Malaysia relations;

EU-Malaysia PCA

7.  Welcomes the conclusion of the PCA with Malaysia; considers that this PCA provides a solid legal framework for further enhancing long-standing bilateral political and economic relations and for discussing issues of regional and global concern such as the promotion of democracy, human rights and international justice, the strengthening of the international framework for the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, counter-terrorism and the fight against corruption, among other things;

8.  Underlines that a modern and future-oriented PCA needs to provide an ambitious framework regarding the cooperation to fight climate change and the promotion of gender equality and women’s rights; calls for the EU to put these aspects at the centre of EU-Malaysia relations when implementing the PCA;

9.  Calls on the Malaysian authorities to change the discriminatory nationality and citizenship laws that undermine women’s basic human rights and to take effective action to tackle discrimination against women in the workplace, including discrimination in access to employment opportunities and treatment, the absence of maternity leave and unequal wages between men and women;

10.  Calls on the parties to commit to supporting the implementation and enforcement of domestic legislation on corporate due diligence and corporate accountability, to agree on more specific obligations in the light of sustainable impact assessments, to exchange relevant information such as the number of investigations, checks and enforcement actions, and to provide training or technical assistance to companies on corporate due diligence and corporate accountability;

11.  Emphasises that the parties agree to cooperate in the fields of science, technology and innovation, as well as in the green technology, energy and transport sectors;

12.  Recalls that the PCA confirms the parties’ commitment to promoting sustainable development, to cooperating to address the challenges of climate change and globalisation, and to contributing to the internationally agreed development goals, in particular to strengthening the global partnership for development, as renewed in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; encourages both parties to step up efforts to tackle the effects of climate change by adopting and implementing more effective climate policies on energy transition and decarbonisation;

13.  Highlights the parties’ commitment to enhance cooperation to address climate change mitigation and adaptation issues under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change; stresses that the implementation of the applicable multilateral environmental agreements, including the Paris Agreement, should be taken into account in all activities undertaken by the parties under the PCA;

14.  Highlights that Malaysia faces increasing environmental degradation in many regions, including deforestation, the loss of biodiversity, and air and water pollution; urges both parties to put an important focus on tackling these issues in their cooperation on the fight against these problems;

15.  Welcomes the fact that the PCA supports the promotion of education and cultural cooperation, including people‑to‑people exchanges;

16.  Stresses that Article 1(1) of the PCA provides that human rights and respect for the strengthening of democratic principles, the rule of law and good governance constitute essential elements of the PCA; calls for bilateral cooperation to be strengthened in the promotion and protection of human rights, in particular as regards exchanges of best practices, human rights education, the establishment of a meaningful, broad-based human rights dialogue and cooperation within the relevant UN human rights bodies; commends Malaysia, against this background, for issuing a standing invitation to the special procedures of the UN Human Rights Council on 26 February 2019; encourages Malaysia to invite the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders for a country visit;

17.  Reiterates its call on the Malaysian authorities to repeal the excessively broad Sedition Act and to bring all legislation, including the Prevention of Terrorism Act, the Printing Presses and Publications Act, the Communications and Multimedia Act, the Peaceful Assembly Act, and other relevant provisions of the Penal Code in line with international standards on freedom of expression and assembly, and the protection of human rights; reiterates its calls on the Malaysian authorities to facilitate peaceful assemblies and to guarantee the safety of all participants and their freedom of expression;

18.  Reiterates its concerns about the adoption of the National Security Council Act in 2016, which grants extraordinary powers to the National Security Council and the security forces; reiterates its call on the Malaysian authorities to repeal this law, which contravenes international human rights standards; stresses that the need to safeguard national security cannot ignore the obligation to protect civil and political rights;

19.  Reiterates its call on the Malaysian authorities to ratify and implement key international human rights conventions, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court;

20.  Calls on the Malaysian Government to promptly ratify and implement all fundamental ILO Conventions, including on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise (No 87), on Discrimination (No 111), and on Occupational Safety and Health (No 155); welcomes Malaysia’s recent ratification of the 2014 Protocol to the 1930 Forced Labour Convention; urges the Malaysian Government to resolutely act against forced labour, including domestic worker abuses and prohibiting employers from retaining passports without employees’ consent; encourages the Malaysian authorities to increase efforts to identify trafficking victims among People’s Republic of China (PRC) workers on PRC government-affiliated infrastructure projects;

21.  Expresses its concern about the situation of religious and ethnic minorities and indigenous communities in the country; encourages the Malaysian authorities to provide a comprehensive framework for the protection and support of all minority and indigenous groups in the country, with due respect for their fundamental rights, including religious freedom and cultural rights;

22.  Condemns the widespread discrimination against the LGBTIQ+ community; calls on the Malaysian Government to swiftly adopt a legal framework to protect the LGBTIQ+ community from discrimination, with full respect for fundamental rights and in line with international standards;

23.  Expresses its concern about the situation of refugees in Malaysia, in particular as regards the detention and deportation of refugees and asylum seekers to countries where they face serious human rights violations, including Rohingya refugees; condemns the summary deportation of thousands of Myanmar citizens without assessing their asylum claims or other protection needs in violation of the principle of non-refoulement; calls on the Malaysian authorities to immediately halt forced deportations and to swiftly grant the UN High Commissioner for Refugees access to immigration detention centres; reiterates its call on the Malaysian authorities to sign and ratify the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol;

24.  Underlines that cooperation on migration needs to be implemented in full respect of international law; calls for the EU to promote, respect and protect international human rights standards and in particular the principles of non-refoulement and of voluntary return in their cooperation on migration with Malaysia;

25.  Commends Malaysia for abolishing the mandatory use of the death penalty; calls on the Malaysian Government to maintain the official moratorium on all executions until the death penalty is fully abolished and all death sentences are commuted;

26.  Calls for the Malaysian authorities and the EU to involve civil society, trade unions and human rights defenders in a meaningful way in the implementation of this agreement;

27.  Stresses that human rights concerns need to be considered during any negotiations with Malaysia;

28.  Stresses that EU free trade agreements provide for the ‘non-execution clause’ leading to the suspension of trade preferences in case of violations of the PCA’s essential elements;

o
o   o

29.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States and the Government and Parliament of Malaysia.

(1) OJ C 493, 27.12.2022, p. 32. (2) OJ C 47, 7.2.2023, p. 15. (3) OJ C 346, 27.9.2018, p. 44. (4) OJ L 144, 10.6.1980, p. 2. (5) OJ C 93, 9.3.2016, p. 89. (6) OJ C 399, 24.11.2017, p. 137. (7) Texts adopted, P9_TA(2023)0011.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 14 June 2023 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Protocol implementing the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius (2022-2026) (12787/2022 – C9-0001/2023 – 2022/0249(NLE))

P9_TA(2023)0235 A9-0196/2023

(Consent)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the draft Council decision (12787/2022),

–  having regard to the Protocol implementing the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius (2022-2026) (12785/2022),

–  having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 43 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a) (v), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9‑0001/2023),

–  having regard to Rule 105(1) and (4), and Rule 114(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the opinion of the Committee on Development,

–  having regard to the opinion of the Committee on Budgets,

–  having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Fisheries (A9-0196/2023),

1.  Gives its consent to the conclusion of the Protocol;

2.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Republic of Mauritius.

Amendments adopted by the European Parliament on 14 June 2023 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and amending certain Union legislative acts (COM(2021)0206 – C9-0146/2021 – 2021/0106(COD))(1)

P9_TA(2023)0236 A9-0188/2023

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

Text proposed by the Commission   Amendment Amendment 1 Proposal for a regulation Citation 4 a (new) Having regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank, Amendment 2 Proposal for a regulation Citation 4 b (new) Having regard to the joint opinion of the European Data Protection Board and the European Data Protection Supervisor, Amendment 3 Proposal for a regulation Recital 1 (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. (1)  The purpose of this Regulation is to promote the uptake of human centric and trustworthy artificial intelligence and to ensure a high level of protection of health, safety, fundamental rights, democracy and rule of law and the environment from harmful effects of artificial intelligence systems in the Union while supporting innovation and improving the functioning of the internal market. This Regulation lays down a uniform legal framework in particular for the development, the placing on the market, the putting into service and the use of artificial intelligence in conformity with Union values and 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 Artificial Intelligence systems (AI systems), unless explicitly authorised by this Regulation. Certain AI systems can also have an impact on democracy and rule of law and the environment. These concerns are specifically addressed in the critical sectors and use cases listed in the annexes to this Regulation. Amendment 4 Proposal for a regulation Recital 1 a (new) (1a)  This Regulation should preserve the values of the Union facilitating the distribution of artificial intelligence benefits across society, protecting individuals, companies, democracy and rule of law and the environment from risks while boosting innovation and employment and making the Union a leader in the field. Amendment 5 Proposal for a regulation Recital 2 (2)  Artificial intelligence systems (AI systems) can be easily deployed in multiple sectors of the economy and society, including cross border, and circulate throughout the Union. Certain Member States have already explored the adoption of national rules to ensure that artificial intelligence is safe and is developed and used in compliance with fundamental rights obligations. Differing national rules may lead to fragmentation of the internal market and decrease legal certainty for operators that develop or use AI systems. A consistent and high level of protection throughout the Union should therefore be ensured, while divergences hampering the free circulation of AI systems and related products and services within the internal market should be prevented, by laying down uniform obligations for operators and guaranteeing the uniform protection of overriding reasons of public interest and of rights of persons throughout the internal market based on Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). To the extent that this Regulation contains specific rules on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data concerning restrictions of the use of AI systems for ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement, it is appropriate to base this Regulation, in as far as those specific rules are concerned, on Article 16 of the TFEU. In light of those specific rules and the recourse to Article 16 TFEU, it is appropriate to consult the European Data Protection Board. (2)  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 trustworthy and 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 in order to achieve trustworthy AI, while divergences hampering the free circulation, innovation, deployment and uptake 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). Amendment 6 Proposal for a regulation Recital 2 a (new) (2a)  As artificial intelligence often relies on the processing of large volumes of data, and many AI systems and applications on the processing of personal data, it is appropriate to base this Regulation on Article 16 TFEU, which enshrines the right to the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and provides for the adoption of rules on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data. Amendment 7 Proposal for a regulation Recital 2 b (new) (2b)  The fundamental right to the protection of personal data is safeguarded in particular by Regulations (EU) 2016/679 and (EU) 2018/1725 and Directive 2016/680. Directive 2002/58/EC additionally protects private life and the confidentiality of communications, including providing conditions for any personal and non-personal data storing in and access from terminal equipment. Those legal acts provide the basis for sustainable and responsible data processing, including where datasets include a mix of personal and nonpersonal data. This Regulation does not seek to affect the application of existing Union law governing the processing of personal data, including the tasks and powers of the independent supervisory authorities competent to monitor compliance with those instruments. This Regulation does not affect the fundamental rights to private life and the protection of personal data as provided for by Union law on data protection and privacy and enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the ‘Charter’). Amendment 8 Proposal for a regulation Recital 2 c (new) (2c)  Artificial intelligence systems in the Union are subject to relevant product safety legislation that provides a framework protecting consumers against dangerous products in general and such legislation should continue to apply. This Regulation is also without prejudice to the rules laid down by other Union legal acts related to consumer protection and product safety, including including Regulation (EU) 2017/2394, Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and Directive 2001/95/EC on general product safety and Directive 2013/11/EU. Amendment 9 Proposal for a regulation Recital 2 d (new) (2d)  In accordance with Article 114(2) TFEU, this Regulation complements and should not undermine the rights and interests of employed persons. This Regulation should therefore not affect Union law on social policy and national labour law and practice, that is any legal and contractual provision concerning employment conditions, working conditions, including health and safety at work and the relationship between employers and workers, including information, consultation and participation. This Regulation should not affect the exercise of fundamental rights as recognised in the Member States and at Union level, including the right or freedom to strike or to take other action covered by the specific industrial relations systems in Member States, in accordance with national law and/or practice. Nor should it affect concertation practices, the right to negotiate, to conclude and enforce collective agreement or to take collective action in accordance with national law and/or practice. It should in any event not prevent the Commission from proposing specific legislation on the rights and freedoms of workers affected by AI systems. Amendment 10 Proposal for a regulation Recital 2 e (new) (2e)  This Regulation should not affect the provisions aiming to improve working conditions in platform work set out in Directive ... [COD 2021/414/EC]. Amendment 11 Proposal for a regulation Recital 2 f (new) (2f)  This Regulation should help in supporting research and innovation and should not undermine research and development activity and respect freedom of scientific research. It is therefore necessary to exclude from its scope AI systems specifically developed for the sole purpose of scientific research and development and to ensure that the Regulation does not otherwise affect scientific research and development activity on AI systems. Under all circumstances, any research and development activity should be carried out in accordance with the Charter, Union law as well as the national law; Amendment 12 Proposal for a regulation Recital 3 (3)  Artificial intelligence is a fast evolving family of technologies that can contribute to a wide array of economic and societal benefits across the entire spectrum of industries and social activities. By improving prediction, optimising operations and resource allocation, and personalising digital solutions available for individuals and organisations, the use of artificial intelligence can provide key competitive advantages to companies and support socially and environmentally beneficial outcomes, for example in healthcare, farming, education and training, infrastructure management, energy, transport and logistics, public services, security, justice, resource and energy efficiency, and climate change mitigation and adaptation. (3)  Artificial intelligence is a fast evolving family of technologies that can and already contributes to a wide array of economic, environmental and societal benefits across the entire spectrum of industries and social activities if developed in accordance with relevant general principles in line with the Charter and the values on which the Union is founded. 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, food safety, education and training, media, sports, culture, infrastructure management, energy, transport and logistics, crisis management, public services, security, justice, resource and energy efficiency, environmental monitoring, the conservation and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems and climate change mitigation and adaptation. Amendment 13 Proposal for a regulation Recital 3 a (new) (3a)  To contribute to reaching the carbon neutrality targets, European companies should seek to utilise all available technological advancements that can assist in realising this goal. Artificial Intelligence is a technology that has the potential of being used to process the ever-growing amount of data created during industrial, environmental, health and other processes. To facilitate investments in AI-based analysis and optimisation tools, this Regulation should provide a predictable and proportionate environment for low-risk industrial solutions. Amendment 14 Proposal for a regulation Recital 4 (4)  At the same time, depending on the circumstances regarding its specific application and use, artificial intelligence may generate risks and cause harm to public interests and rights that are protected by Union law. Such harm might be material or immaterial. (4)  At the same time, depending on the circumstances regarding its specific application and use, as well as the level of technological development, artificial intelligence may generate risks and cause harm to public or private interests and fundamental rights of natural persons that are protected by Union law. Such harm might be material or immaterial, including physical, psychological, societal or economic harm. Amendment 15 Proposal for a regulation Recital 4 a (new) (4a)  Given the major impact that artificial intelligence can have on society and the need to build trust, it is vital for artificial intelligence and its regulatory framework to be developed according to Union values enshrined in Article 2 TEU, the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in the Treaties, the Charter, and international human rights law. As a pre-requisite, artificial intelligence should be a human-centric technology. It should not substitute human autonomy or assume the loss of individual freedom and should primarily serve the needs of the society and the common good. Safeguards should be provided to ensure the development and use of ethically embedded artificial intelligence that respects Union values and the Charter. Amendment 16 Proposal for a regulation Recital 5 (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 Council33 , and it ensures the protection of ethical principles, as specifically requested by the European Parliament34 . (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, protection of fundamental rights, democracy and rule of law and the environment, as recognised and protected by Union law. To achieve that objective, rules regulating the placing on the market, the putting into service and the use 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. These rules should be clear and robust in protecting fundamental rights, supportive of new innovative solutions, and enabling to a European ecosystem of public and private actors creating AI systems in line with Union values. By laying down those rules as well as measures in support of innovation with a particular focus on SMEs and start-ups, this Regulation supports the objective of promoting the AI made in Europe, of the Union of being a global leader in the development of secure, trustworthy and ethical artificial intelligence, as stated by the European Council33, and it ensures the protection of ethical principles, as specifically requested by the European Parliament34. __________________ __________________ 33 European Council, Special meeting of the European Council (1 and 2 October 2020) – Conclusions, EUCO 13/20, 2020, p. 6. 33 European Council, Special meeting of the European Council (1 and 2 October 2020) – Conclusions, EUCO 13/20, 2020, p. 6. 34 European Parliament resolution of 20 October 2020 with recommendations to the Commission on a framework of ethical aspects of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, 2020/2012(INL). 34 European Parliament resolution of 20 October 2020 with recommendations to the Commission on a framework of ethical aspects of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, 2020/2012(INL). Amendment 17 Proposal for a regulation Recital 5 a (new) (5a)  Furthermore, in order to foster the development of AI systems in line with Union values, the Union needs to address the main gaps and barriers blocking the potential of the digital transformation including the shortage of digitally skilled workers, cybersecurity concerns, lack of investment and access to investment, and existing and potential gaps between large companies, SME’s and start-ups. Special attention should be paid to ensuring that the benefits of AI and innovation in new technologies are felt across all regions of the Union and that sufficient investment and resources are provided especially to those regions that may be lagging behind in some digital indicators. Amendment 18 Proposal for a regulation Recital 6 (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. (6)  The notion of AI system in this Regulation should be clearly defined and closely aligned with the work of international organisations working on artificial intelligence to ensure legal certainty, harmonization and wide acceptance, while providing the flexibility to accommodate the rapid technological developments in this field. Moreover, it should be based on key characteristics of artificial intelligence, such as its learning, reasoning or modelling capabilities, so as to distinguish it from simpler software systems or programming approaches. AI systems are designed to operate with varying levels of autonomy, meaning that they have at least some degree of independence of actions from human controls and of capabilities to operate without human intervention. The term “machine-based” refers to the fact that AI systems run on machines. The reference to explicit or implicit objectives underscores that AI systems can operate according to explicit human-defined objectives or to implicit objectives. The objectives of the AI system may be different from the intended purpose of the AI system in a specific context. The reference to predictions includes content, which is considered in this Regulation a form of prediction as one of the possible outputs produced by an AI system. For the purposes of this Regulation, environments should be understood as the contexts in which the AI systems operate, whereas outputs generated by the AI system, meaning predictions, recommendations or decisions, respond to the objectives of the system, on the basis of inputs from said environment. Such output further influences said environment, even by merely introducing new information to it. Amendment 19 Proposal for a regulation Recital 6 a (new) (6a)  AI systems often have machine learning capacities that allow them to adapt and perform new tasks autonomously. Machine learning refers to the computational process of optimizing the parameters of a model from data, which is a mathematical construct generating an output based on input data. Machine learning approaches include, for instance, supervised, unsupervised and reinforcement learning, using a variety of methods including deep learning with neural networks. This Regulation is aimed at addressing new potential risks that may arise by delegating control to AI systems, in particular to those AI systems that can evolve after deployment. The function and outputs of many of these AI systems are based on abstract mathematical relationships that are difficult for humans to understand, monitor and trace back to specific inputs. These complex and opaque characteristics (black box element) impact accountability and explainability. Comparably simpler techniques such as knowledge-based approaches, Bayesian estimation or decision-trees may also lead to legal gaps that need to be addressed by this Regulation, in particular when they are used in combination with machine learning approaches in hybrid systems. Amendment 20 Proposal for a regulation Recital 6 b (new) (6b)  AI systems can be used as stand-alone software system, integrated into a physical product (embedded), used to serve the functionality of a physical product without being integrated therein (non-embedded) or used as an AI component of a larger system. If this larger system would not function without the AI component in question, then the entire larger system should be considered as one single AI system under this Regulation. Amendment 21 Proposal for a regulation Recital 7 (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 Council35 , Article 3(18) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council36 and Article 3(13) of Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council37 . (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 Council35. Biometrics-based data are additional data resulting from specific technical processing relating to physical, physiological or behavioural signals of a natural person, such as facial expressions, movements, pulse frequency, voice, key strikes or gait, which may or may not allow or confirm the unique identification of a natural person. __________________ __________________ 35 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1). 35 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1). 36 Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p. 39) 37 Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA (Law Enforcement Directive) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 89). Amendment 22 Proposal for a regulation Recital 7 a (new) (7a)  The notion of biometric identification as used in this Regulation should be defined as the automated recognition of physical, physiological, behavioural, and psychological human features such as the face, eye movement, facial expressions, body shape, voice, speech, gait, posture, heart rate, blood pressure, odour, keystrokes, psychological reactions (anger, distress, grief, etc.) for the purpose of establishing an individual’s identity by comparing biometric data of that individual to stored biometric data of individuals in a database (one-to-many identification), irrespective of whether the individual has given its consent or not. Amendment 23 Proposal for a regulation Recital 7 b (new) (7b)  The notion of biometric categorisation as used in this Regulation should be defined as assigning natural persons to specific categories or inferring their characteristics and attributes such as gender, sex, age, hair colour, eye colour, tattoos, ethnic or social origin, health, mental or physical ability, behavioural or personality, traits language, religion, or membership of a national minority or sexual or political orientation on the basis of their biometric or biometric-based data, or which can be inferred from such data. Amendment 24 Proposal for a regulation Recital 8 (8)  The notion of remote biometric identification system as used in this Regulation should be defined functionally, as an AI system intended for the identification of natural persons at a distance through the comparison of a person’s biometric data with the biometric data contained in a reference database, and without prior knowledge whether the targeted person will be present and can be identified, irrespectively of the particular technology, processes or types of biometric data used. Considering their different characteristics and manners in which they are used, as well as the different risks involved, a distinction should be made between ‘real-time’ and ‘post’ remote biometric identification systems. In the case of ‘real-time’ systems, the capturing of the biometric data, the comparison and the identification occur all instantaneously, near-instantaneously or in any event without a significant delay. In this regard, there should be no scope for circumventing the rules of this Regulation on the ‘real-time’ use of the AI systems in question by providing for minor delays. ‘Real-time’ systems involve the use of ‘live’ or ‘near-‘live’ material, such as video footage, generated by a camera or other device with similar functionality. In the case of ‘post’ systems, in contrast, the biometric data have already been captured and the comparison and identification occur only after a significant delay. This involves material, such as pictures or video footage generated by closed circuit television cameras or private devices, which has been generated before the use of the system in respect of the natural persons concerned. (8)  The notion of remote biometric identification system as used in this Regulation should be defined functionally, as an AI system intended for the identification of natural persons at a distance through the comparison of a person’s biometric data with the biometric data contained in a reference database, and without prior knowledge whether the targeted person will be present and can be identified, irrespectively of the particular technology, processes or types of biometric data used, exlcuding verification systems which merely compare the biometric data of an individual to their previously provided biometric data (one-to-one). 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. Given that the notion of biometric identification is independent from the individual’s consent, this definition applies even when warning notices are placed in the location that is under surveillance of the remote biometric identification system, and is not de facto annulled by pre-enrolment. Amendment 25 Proposal for a regulation Recital 8 a (new) (8a)  The identification of natural persons at a distance is understood to distinguish remote biometric identification systems from close proximity individual verification systems using biometric identification means, whose sole purpose is to confirm whether or not a specific natural person presenting themselves for identification is permitted, such as in order to gain access to a service, a device, or premises. Amendment 26 Proposal for a regulation Recital 9 (9)  For the purposes of this Regulation the notion of publicly accessible space should be understood as referring to any physical place that is accessible to the public, irrespective of whether the place in question is privately or publicly owned. Therefore, the notion does not cover places that are private in nature and normally not freely accessible for third parties, including law enforcement authorities, unless those parties have been specifically invited or authorised, such as homes, private clubs, offices, warehouses and factories. Online spaces are not covered either, as they are not physical spaces. However, the mere fact that certain conditions for accessing a particular space may apply, such as admission tickets or age restrictions, does not mean that the space is not publicly accessible within the meaning of this Regulation. Consequently, in addition to public spaces such as streets, relevant parts of government buildings and most transport infrastructure, spaces such as cinemas, theatres, shops and shopping centres are normally also publicly accessible. Whether a given space is accessible to the public should however be determined on a case-by-case basis, having regard to the specificities of the individual situation at hand. (9)  For the purposes of this Regulation the notion of publicly accessible 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 and regardless of the potential capacity restrictions. 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, sports grounds, schools, universities, relevant parts of hospitals and banks, amusement parks, festivals, 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. Amendment 27 Proposal for a regulation Recital 9 a (new) (9a)  It is important to note that AI systems should make best efforts to respect general principles establishing a high-level framework that promotes a coherent human-centric approach to ethical and trustworthy AI in line with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the values on which the Union is founded, including the protection of fundamental rights, human agency and oversight, technical robustness and safety, privacy and data governance, transparency, non-discrimination and fairness and societal and environmental wellbeing. Amendment 28 Proposal for a regulation Recital 9 b (new) (9b)  ‘AI literacy’ refers to skills, knowledge and understanding that allows providers, users and affected persons, taking into account their respective rights and obligations in the context of this Regulation, to make an informed deployment of AI systems, as well as to gain awareness about the opportunities and risks of AI and possible harm it can cause and thereby promote its democratic control. AI literacy should not be limited to learning about tools and technologies, but should also aim to equip providers and users with the notions and skills required to ensure compliance with and enforcement of this Regulation. It is therefore necessary that the Commission, the Member States as well as providers and users of AI systems, in cooperation with all relevant stakeholders, promote the development of a sufficient level of AI literacy, in all sectors of society, for people of all ages, including women and girls, and that progress in that regard is closely followed. Amendment 29 Proposal for a regulation Recital 10 (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. (10)  In order to ensure a level playing field and an effective protection of rights and freedoms of individuals across the Union and on international level, 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 deployers of AI systems established within the Union. In order for the Union to be true to its fundamental values, AI systems intended to be used for practices that are considered unacceptable by this Regulation, should equally be deemed to be unacceptable outside the Union because of their particularly harmful effect to fundamental rights as enshrined in the Charter. Therefore it is appropriate to prohibit the export of such AI systems to third countries by providers residing in the Union. Amendment 30 Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 (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. (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 deployers of AI systems that are established in a third country, to the extent the output produced by those systems is intended to be 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. This exception should nevertheless be limited to trusted countries and international organisation that share Union values. Amendment 31 Proposal for a regulation Recital 12 (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]. (12)  This Regulation should also apply to Union institutions, offices, bodies and agencies when acting as a provider or deployer 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]. Amendment 32 Proposal for a regulation Recital 12 a (new) (12a)  Software and data that are openly shared and where users can freely access, use, modify and redistribute them or modified versions thereof, can contribute to research and innovation in the market. Research by the Commission also shows that free and open-source software can contribute between EUR 65 billion to EUR 95 billion to the European Union’s GDP and that it can provide significant growth opportunities for the European economy. Users are allowed to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve software and data, including models by way of free and open-source licences. To foster the development and deployment of AI, especially by SMEs, start-ups, academic research but also by individuals, this Regulation should not apply to such free and open-source AI components except to the extent that they are placed on the market or put into service by a provider as part of a high-risk AI system or of an AI system that falls under Title II or IV of this Regulation. Amendment 33 Proposal for a regulation Recital 12 b (new) (12b)  Neither the collaborative development of free and open-source AI components nor making them available on open repositories should constitute a placing on the market or putting into service. A commercial activity, within the understanding of making available on the market, might however be characterised by charging a price, with the exception of transactions between micro enterprises, for a free and open-source AI component but also by charging a price for technical support services, by providing a software platform through which the provider monetises other services, or by the use of personal data for reasons other than exclusively for improving the security, compatibility or interoperability of the software. Amendment 34 Proposal for a regulation Recital 12 c (new) (12c)  The developers of free and open-source AI components should not be mandated under this Regulation to comply with requirements targeting the AI value chain and, in particular, not towards the provider that has used that free and open-source AI component. Developers of free and open-source AI components should however be encouraged to implement widely adopted documentation practices, such as model and data cards, as a way to accelerate information sharing along the AI value chain, allowing the promotion of trustworthy AI systems in the Union. Amendment 35 Proposal for a regulation Recital 13 (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. (13)  In order to ensure a consistent and high level of protection of public interests as regards health, safety and fundamental rights as well as democracy and rule of law and the environment, common normative standards for all high-risk AI systems should be established. Those standards should be consistent with the Charter, the European Green Deal, the Joint Declaration on Digital Rights of the Union and the Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (AI) of the High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence, and should be non-discriminatory and in line with the Union’s international trade commitments. Amendment 36 Proposal for a regulation Recital 14 (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. (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 unacceptable 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 Amendment 37 Proposal for a regulation Recital 15 (15)  Aside from the many beneficial uses of artificial intelligence, that technology can also be misused and provide novel and powerful tools for manipulative, exploitative and social control practices. Such practices are particularly harmful and should be prohibited because they contradict Union values of respect for human dignity, freedom, equality, democracy and the rule of law and Union fundamental rights, including the right to non-discrimination, data protection and privacy and the rights of the child. (15)  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 abusive 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. Amendment 38 Proposal for a regulation Recital 16 (16)  The placing on the market, putting into service or use of certain AI systems intended to distort human behaviour, whereby physical or psychological harms are likely to occur, should be forbidden. Such AI systems deploy subliminal components individuals cannot perceive or exploit vulnerabilities of children and people due to their age, physical or mental incapacities. They do so with the intention to materially distort the behaviour of a person and in a manner that causes or is likely to cause harm to that or another person. The intention may not be presumed if the distortion of human behaviour results from factors external to the AI system which are outside of the control of the provider or the user. Research for legitimate purposes in relation to such AI systems should not be stifled by the prohibition, if such research does not amount to use of the AI system in human-machine relations that exposes natural persons to harm and such research is carried out in accordance with recognised ethical standards for scientific research. (16)  The placing on the market, putting into service or use of certain AI systems with the objective to or the effect of materially distorting human behaviour, whereby physical or psychological harms are likely to occur, should be forbidden. This limitation should be understood to include neuro-technologies assisted by AI systems that are used to monitor, use, or influence neural data gathered through brain-computer interfaces insofar as they are materially distorting the behaviour of a natural person in a manner that causes or is likely to cause that person or another person significant harm. Such AI systems deploy subliminal components individuals cannot perceive or exploit vulnerabilities of individuals and specific groups of persons due to their known or predicted personality traits, age, physical or mental incapacities, social or economic situation. They do so with the intention to or the effect of materially distorting the behaviour of a person and in a manner that causes or is likely to cause significant harm to that or another person or groups of persons, including harms that may be accumulated over time. The intention to distort the behaviour may not be presumed if the distortion results from factors external to the AI system which are outside of the control of the provider or the user, such as factors that may not be reasonably foreseen and mitigated by the provider or the deployer of the AI system. In any case, it is not necessary for the provider or the deployer to have the intention to cause the significant harm, as long as such harm results from the manipulative or exploitative AI-enabled practices. The prohibitions for such AI practices is complementary to the provisions contained in Directive 2005/29/EC, according to which unfair commercial practices are prohibited, irrespective of whether they carried out having recourse to AI systems or otherwise. In such setting, lawful commercial practices, for example in the field of advertising, that are in compliance with Union law should not in themselves be regarded as violating prohibition. 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 and on the basis of specific informed consent of the individuals that are exposed to them or, where applicable, of their legal guardian. Amendment 39 Proposal for a regulation Recital 16 a (new) (16a)  AI systems that categorise natural persons by assigning them to specific categories, according to known or inferred sensitive or protected characteristics are particularly intrusive, violate human dignity and hold great risk of discrimination. Such characteristics include gender, gender identity, race, ethnic origin, migration or citizenship status, political orientation, sexual orientation, religion, disability or any other grounds on which discrimination is prohibited under Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as well as under Article 9 of Regulation (EU)2016/769. Such systems should therefore be prohibited. Amendment 40 Proposal for a regulation Recital 17 (17)  AI systems providing social scoring of natural persons for general purpose by public authorities or on their behalf may lead to discriminatory outcomes and the exclusion of certain groups. They may violate the right to dignity and non-discrimination and the values of equality and justice. Such AI systems evaluate or classify the trustworthiness of natural persons based on their social behaviour in multiple contexts or known or predicted personal or personality characteristics. The social score obtained from such AI systems may lead to the detrimental or unfavourable treatment of natural persons or whole groups thereof in social contexts, which are unrelated to the context in which the data was originally generated or collected or to a detrimental treatment that is disproportionate or unjustified to the gravity of their social behaviour. Such AI systems should be therefore prohibited. (17)  AI systems providing social scoring of natural persons for general purpose may lead to discriminatory outcomes and the exclusion of certain groups. They violate the right to dignity and non-discrimination and the values of equality and justice. Such AI systems evaluate or classify natural persons or groups based on multiple data points and time occurrences related to their social behaviour in multiple contexts or known, inferred or predicted personal or personality characteristics. The social score obtained from such AI systems may lead to the detrimental or unfavourable treatment of natural persons or whole groups thereof 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. Amendment 41 Proposal for a regulation Recital 18 (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. (18)  The use of AI systems for ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification of natural persons in publicly accessible spaces is particularly intrusive to the rights and freedoms of the concerned persons, and can ultimately affect the private life of a large part of the population, evoke a feeling of constant surveillance, give parties deploying biometric identification in publicly accessible spaces a position of uncontrollable power and indirectly dissuade the exercise of the freedom of assembly and other fundamental rights at the core to the Rule of Law. 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. 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. The use of those systems in publicly accessible places should therefore be prohibited. Similarly, AI systems used for the analysis of recorded footage of publicly accessible spaces through ‘post’ remote biometric identification systems should also be prohibited, unless there is pre-judicial authorisation for use in the context of law enforcement, when strictly necessary for the targeted search connected to a specific serious criminal offense that already took place, and only subject to a pre-judicial authorisation. Amendment 42 Proposal for a regulation Recital 19 (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/JHA38 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. deleted __________________ 38 Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1). Amendment 43 Proposal for a regulation Recital 20 (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. deleted Amendment 44 Proposal for a regulation Recital 21 (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. deleted Amendment 45 Proposal for a regulation Recital 22 (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. deleted Amendment 46 Proposal for a regulation Recital 23 (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. deleted Amendment 47 Proposal for a regulation Recital 24 (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. (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 as regulated by this Regulation 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. Amendment 48 Proposal for a regulation Recital 25 (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. (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), 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. Amendment 49 Proposal for a regulation Recital 26 (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. (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) 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. Amendment 50 Proposal for a regulation Recital 26 a (new) (26a)  AI systems used by law enforcement authorities or on their behalf to make predictions, profiles or risk assessments based on profiling of natural persons or data analysis based on personality traits and characteristics, including the person’s location, or past criminal behaviour of natural persons or groups of persons for the purpose of predicting the occurrence or reoccurrence of an actual or potential criminal offence(s) or other criminalised social behaviour or administrative offences, including fraud-predicition systems, hold a particular risk of discrimination against certain persons or groups of persons, as they violate human dignity as well as the key legal principle of presumption of innocence. Such AI systems should therefore be prohibited. Amendment 51 Proposal for a regulation Recital 26 b (new) (26b)  The indiscriminate and untargeted scraping of biometric data from social media or CCTV footage to create or expand facial recognition databases add to the feeling of mass surveillance and can lead to gross violations of fundamental rights, including the right to privacy. The use of AI systems with this intended purpose should therefore be prohibited. Amendment 52 Proposal for a regulation Recital 26 c (new) (26c)  There are serious concerns about the scientific basis of AI systems aiming to detect emotions, physical or physiological features such as facial expressions, movements, pulse frequency or voice. Emotions or expressions of emotions and perceptions thereof vary considerably across cultures and situations, and even within a single individual. Among the key shortcomings of such technologies, are the limited reliability (emotion categories are neither reliably expressed through, nor unequivocally associated with, a common set of physical or physiological movements), the lack of specificity (physical or physiological expressions do not perfectly match emotion categories) and the limited generalisability (the effects of context and culture are not sufficiently considered). Reliability issues and consequently, major risks for abuse, may especially arise when deploying the system in real-life situations related to law enforcement, border management, workplace and education institutions. Therefore, the placing on the market, putting into service, or use of AI systems intended to be used in these contexts to detect the emotional state of individuals should be prohibited. Amendment 53 Proposal for a regulation Recital 26 d (new) (26d)  Practices that are prohibited by Union legislation, including data protection law, non-discrimination law, consumer protection law, and competition law, should not be affected by this Regulation Amendment 54 Proposal for a regulation Recital 27 (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. (27)  High-risk AI systems should only be placed on the Union market, put into service or used 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, including fundamental rights, democracy, the rule or law or the environment. In order to ensure alignment with sectoral legislation and avoid duplications, requirements for high-risk AI systems should take into account sectoral legislation laying down requirements for high-risk AI systems included in the scope of this Regulation, such as Regulation (EU) 2017/745 on Medical Devices and Regulation (EU) 2017/746 on In Vitro Diagnostic Devices or Directive 2006/42/EC on Machinery. 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. Given the rapid pace of technological development, as well as the potential changes in the use of AI systems, the list of high-risk areas and use-cases in Annex III should nonetheless be subject to permanent review through the exercise of regular assessment. Amendment 55 Proposal for a regulation Recital 28 (28)  AI systems could produce adverse outcomes to health and safety of persons, in particular when such systems operate as components of products. Consistently with the objectives of Union harmonisation legislation to facilitate the free movement of products in the internal market and to ensure that only safe and otherwise compliant products find their way into the market, it is important that the safety risks that may be generated by a product as a whole due to its digital components, including AI systems, are duly prevented and mitigated. For instance, increasingly autonomous robots, whether in the context of manufacturing or personal assistance and care should be able to safely operate and performs their functions in complex environments. Similarly, in the health sector where the stakes for life and health are particularly high, increasingly sophisticated diagnostics systems and systems supporting human decisions should be reliable and accurate. The extent of the adverse impact caused by the AI system on the fundamental rights protected by the Charter is of particular relevance when classifying an AI system as high-risk. Those rights include the right to human dignity, respect for private and family life, protection of personal data, freedom of expression and information, freedom of assembly and of association, and non-discrimination, consumer protection, workers’ rights, rights of persons with disabilities, right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, right of defence and the presumption of innocence, right to good administration. In addition to those rights, it is important to highlight that children have specific rights as enshrined in Article 24 of the EU Charter and in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (further elaborated in the UNCRC General Comment No. 25 as regards the digital environment), both of which require consideration of the children’s vulnerabilities and provision of such protection and care as necessary for their well-being. The fundamental right to a high level of environmental protection enshrined in the Charter and implemented in Union policies should also be considered when assessing the severity of the harm that an AI system can cause, including in relation to the health and safety of persons. (28)  AI systems could have an adverse impact to health and safety of persons, in particular when such systems operate as safety 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. Amendment 56 Proposal for a regulation Recital 28 a (new) (28a)  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, right to education consumer protection, workers’ rights, rights of persons with disabilities, gender equality, intellectual property rights, 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 or to the environment. Amendment 57 Proposal for a regulation Recital 29 (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 Council39 , Regulation (EU) No 167/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council40 , Regulation (EU) No 168/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council41 , Directive 2014/90/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council42 , Directive (EU) 2016/797 of the European Parliament and of the Council43 , Regulation (EU) 2018/858 of the European Parliament and of the Council44 , Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council45 , and Regulation (EU) 2019/2144 of the European Parliament and of the Council46 , 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. (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 Council39 , Regulation (EU) No 167/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council40 , Regulation (EU) No 168/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council41 , Directive 2014/90/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council42 , Directive (EU) 2016/797 of the European Parliament and of the Council43 , Regulation (EU) 2018/858 of the European Parliament and of the Council44 , Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council45 , and Regulation (EU) 2019/2144 of the European Parliament and of the Council46 , 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, market surveillance 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. __________________ __________________ 39 Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation security and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 (OJ L 97, 9.4.2008, p. 72). 39 Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation security and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 (OJ L 97, 9.4.2008, p. 72). 40 Regulation (EU) No 167/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 February 2013 on the approval and market surveillance of agricultural and forestry vehicles (OJ L 60, 2.3.2013, p. 1). 40 Regulation (EU) No 167/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 February 2013 on the approval and market surveillance of agricultural and forestry vehicles (OJ L 60, 2.3.2013, p. 1). 41 Regulation (EU) No 168/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2013 on the approval and market surveillance of two- or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles (OJ L 60, 2.3.2013, p. 52). 41 Regulation (EU) No 168/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2013 on the approval and market surveillance of two- or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles (OJ L 60, 2.3.2013, p. 52). 42 Directive 2014/90/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on marine equipment and repealing Council Directive 96/98/EC (OJ L 257, 28.8.2014, p. 146). 42 Directive 2014/90/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on marine equipment and repealing Council Directive 96/98/EC (OJ L 257, 28.8.2014, p. 146). 43 Directive (EU) 2016/797 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on the interoperability of the rail system within the European Union (OJ L 138, 26.5.2016, p. 44). 43 Directive (EU) 2016/797 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on the interoperability of the rail system within the European Union (OJ L 138, 26.5.2016, p. 44). 44 Regulation (EU) 2018/858 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on the approval and market surveillance of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles, amending Regulations (EC) No 715/2007 and (EC) No 595/2009 and repealing Directive 2007/46/EC (OJ L 151, 14.6.2018, p. 1). 44 Regulation (EU) 2018/858 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on the approval and market surveillance of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles, amending Regulations (EC) No 715/2007 and (EC) No 595/2009 and repealing Directive 2007/46/EC (OJ L 151, 14.6.2018, p. 1). 45 Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2018 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Union Aviation Safety Agency, and amending Regulations (EC) No 2111/2005, (EC) No 1008/2008, (EU) No 996/2010, (EU) No 376/2014 and Directives 2014/30/EU and 2014/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Regulations (EC) No 552/2004 and (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 (OJ L 212, 22.8.2018, p. 1). 45 Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2018 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Union Aviation Safety Agency, and amending Regulations (EC) No 2111/2005, (EC) No 1008/2008, (EU) No 996/2010, (EU) No 376/2014 and Directives 2014/30/EU and 2014/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Regulations (EC) No 552/2004 and (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 (OJ L 212, 22.8.2018, p. 1). 46 Regulation (EU) 2019/2144 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019 on type-approval requirements for motor vehicles and their trailers, and systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles, as regards their general safety and the protection of vehicle occupants and vulnerable road users, amending Regulation (EU) 2018/858 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Regulations (EC) No 78/2009, (EC) No 79/2009 and (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulations (EC) No 631/2009, (EU) No 406/2010, (EU) No 672/2010, (EU) No 1003/2010, (EU) No 1005/2010, (EU) No 1008/2010, (EU) No 1009/2010, (EU) No 19/2011, (EU) No 109/2011, (EU) No 458/2011, (EU) No 65/2012, (EU) No 130/2012, (EU) No 347/2012, (EU) No 351/2012, (EU) No 1230/2012 and (EU) 2015/166 (OJ L 325, 16.12.2019, p. 1). 46 Regulation (EU) 2019/2144 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019 on type-approval requirements for motor vehicles and their trailers, and systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles, as regards their general safety and the protection of vehicle occupants and vulnerable road users, amending Regulation (EU) 2018/858 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Regulations (EC) No 78/2009, (EC) No 79/2009 and (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulations (EC) No 631/2009, (EU) No 406/2010, (EU) No 672/2010, (EU) No 1003/2010, (EU) No 1005/2010, (EU) No 1008/2010, (EU) No 1009/2010, (EU) No 19/2011, (EU) No 109/2011, (EU) No 458/2011, (EU) No 65/2012, (EU) No 130/2012, (EU) No 347/2012, (EU) No 351/2012, (EU) No 1230/2012 and (EU) 2015/166 (OJ L 325, 16.12.2019, p. 1). Amendment 58 Proposal for a regulation Recital 30 (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. (30)  As regards AI systems that are safety components of products, or which are themselves products, falling within the scope of certain Union harmonisation law listed in Annex II, it is appropriate to classify them as high-risk under this Regulation if the product in question undergoes the conformity assessment procedure in order to ensure compliance with essential safety requirements with a third-party conformity assessment body pursuant to that relevant Union harmonisation law. 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. Amendment 59 Proposal for a regulation Recital 31 (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 Council47 and Regulation (EU) 2017/746 of the European Parliament and of the Council48 , where a third-party conformity assessment is provided for medium-risk and high-risk products. (31)  The classification of an AI system as high-risk pursuant to this Regulation should not 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 law that applies to the product. This is notably the case for Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of the Council47 and Regulation (EU) 2017/746 of the European Parliament and of the Council48 , where a third-party conformity assessment is provided for medium-risk and high-risk products. __________________ __________________ 47 Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2017 on medical devices, amending Directive 2001/83/EC, Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 and repealing Council Directives 90/385/EEC and 93/42/EEC (OJ L 117, 5.5.2017, p. 1). 47 Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2017 on medical devices, amending Directive 2001/83/EC, Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 and repealing Council Directives 90/385/EEC and 93/42/EEC (OJ L 117, 5.5.2017, p. 1). 48 Regulation (EU) 2017/746 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2017 on in vitro diagnostic medical devices and repealing Directive 98/79/EC and Commission Decision 2010/227/EU (OJ L 117, 5.5.2017, p. 176). 48 Regulation (EU) 2017/746 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2017 on in vitro diagnostic medical devices and repealing Directive 98/79/EC and Commission Decision 2010/227/EU (OJ L 117, 5.5.2017, p. 176). Amendment 60 Proposal for a regulation Recital 32 (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. (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 and that are listed in one of the areas and use cases in Annex III, it is appropriate to classify them as high-risk if, in the light of their intended purpose, they pose a significant risk of harm to the health and safety or the fundamental rights of persons and, where the AI system is used as a safety component of a critical infrastructure, to the environment . Such significant risk of harm should be identified by assessing on the one hand the effect of such risk with respect to its level of severity, intensity, probability of occurrence and duration combined altogether and on the other hand whether the risk can affect an individual, a plurality of persons or a particular group of persons. Such combination could for instance result in a high severity but low probability to affect a natural person, or a high probability to affect a group of persons with a low intensity over a long period of time, depending on the context. 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. Amendment 61 Proposal for a regulation Recital 32 a (new) (32a)  Providers whose AI systems fall under one of the areas and use cases listed in Annex III that consider their system does not pose a significant risk of harm to the health, safety, fundamental rights or the environment should inform the national supervisory authorities by submitting a reasoned notification. This could take the form of a one-page summary of the relevant information on the AI system in question, including its intended purpose and why it would not pose a significant risk of harm to the health, safety, fundamental rights or the environment. The Commission should specify criteria to enable companies to assess whether their system would pose such risks, as well as develop an easy to use and standardised template for the notification. Providers should submit the notification as early as possible and in any case prior to the placing of the AI system on the market or its putting into service, ideally at the development stage, and they should be free to place it on the market at any given time after the notification. However, if the authority estimates the AI system in question was misclassified, it should object to the notification within a period of three months. The objection should be substantiated and duly explain why the AI system has been misclassified. The provider should retain the right to appeal by providing further arguments. If after the three months there has been no objection to the notification, national supervisory authorities could still intervene if the AI system presents a risk at national level, as for any other AI system on the market. National supervisory authorities should submit annual reports to the AI Office detailing the notifications received and the decisions taken. Amendment 62 Proposal for a regulation Recital 33 (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. deleted Amendment 63 Proposal for a regulation Recital 33 a (new) (33a)  As biometric data constitute a special category of sensitive personal data in accordance with Regulation 2016/679, it is appropriate to classify as high-risk several critical use-cases of biometric and biometrics-based systems. AI systems intended to be used for biometric identification of natural persons and AI systems intended to be used to make inferences about personal characteristics of natural persons on the basis of biometric or biometrics-based data, including emotion recognition systems, with the exception of those which are prohibited under this Regulation should therefore be classified as high-risk. This should not include AI systems intended to be used for biometric verification, which includes authentication, whose sole purpose is to confirm that a specific natural person is the person he or she claims to be and to confirm the identity of a natural person for the sole purpose of having access to a service, a device or premises (one-to-one verification). Biometric and biometrics-based systems which are provided for under Union law to enable cybersecurity and personal data protection measures should not be considered as posing a significant risk of harm to the health, safety and fundamental rights. Amendment 64 Proposal for a regulation Recital 34 (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. (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 the supply of water, gas, heating electricity and critical digital infrastructure, since their failure or malfunctioning may infringe the security and integrity of such critical infrastructure or 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. Safety components of critical infrastructure, including critical digital infrastructure, are systems used to directly protect the physical integrity of critical infrastructure or health and safety of persons and property. Failure or malfunctioning of such components might directly lead to risks to the physical integrity of critical infrastructure and thus to risks to the health and safety of persons and property. Components intended to be used solely for cybersecurity purposes should not qualify as safety components. Examples of such safety components may include systems for monitoring water pressure or fire alarm controlling systems in cloud computing centres. Amendment 65 Proposal for a regulation Recital 35 (35)  AI systems used in education or vocational training, notably for determining access or assigning persons to educational and vocational training institutions or to evaluate persons on tests as part of or as a precondition for their education should be considered high-risk, since they may determine the educational and professional course of a person’s life and therefore affect their ability to secure their livelihood. When improperly designed and used, such systems may violate the right to education and training as well as the right not to be discriminated against and perpetuate historical patterns of discrimination. (35)  Deployment of AI systems in education is important in order to help modernise entire education systems, to increase educational quality, both offline and online and to accelerate digital education, thus also making it available to a broader audience . AI systems used in education or vocational training, notably for determining access or materially influence decisions on admission 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 or to assess the appropriate level of education for an individual and materially influence the level of education and training that individuals will receive or be able to access or to monitor and detect prohibited behaviour of students during tests should be classified as high-risk AI systems, 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 can be particularly intrusive and may violate the right to education and training as well as the right not to be discriminated against and 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. Amendment 66 Proposal for a regulation Recital 36 (36)  AI systems used in employment, workers management and access to self-employment, notably for the recruitment and selection of persons, for making decisions on promotion and termination and for task allocation, monitoring or evaluation of persons in work-related contractual relationships, should also be classified as high-risk, since those systems may appreciably impact future career prospects and livelihoods of these persons. Relevant work-related contractual relationships should involve employees and persons providing services through platforms as referred to in the Commission Work Programme 2021. Such persons should in principle not be considered users within the meaning of this Regulation. Throughout the recruitment process and in the evaluation, promotion, or retention of persons in work-related contractual relationships, such systems may perpetuate historical patterns of discrimination, for example against women, certain age groups, persons with disabilities, or persons of certain racial or ethnic origins or sexual orientation. AI systems used to monitor the performance and behaviour of these persons may also impact their rights to data protection and privacy. (36)  AI systems used in employment, workers management and access to self-employment, notably for the recruitment and selection of persons, for making decisions or materially influence decisions on initiation, promotion and termination and for personalised task allocation based on individual behaviour, personal traits or biometric data, monitoring or evaluation of persons in work-related contractual relationships, should also be classified as high-risk, since those systems may appreciably impact future career prospects, livelihoods of these persons and workers’ rights. Relevant work-related contractual relationships should meaningfully involve employees and persons providing services through platforms as referred to in the Commission Work Programme 2021. Throughout the recruitment process and in the evaluation, promotion, or retention of persons in work-related contractual relationships, such systems may perpetuate historical patterns of discrimination, for example against women, certain age groups, persons with disabilities, or persons of certain racial or ethnic origins or sexual orientation. AI systems used to monitor the performance and behaviour of these persons may also undermine the essence of their fundamental rights to data protection and privacy. This Regulation applies without prejudice to Union and Member State competences to provide for more specific rules for the use of AI-systems in the employment context. Amendment 67 Proposal for a regulation Recital 37 (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. (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, including healthcare services, and essential services, including but not limited to housing, electricity, heating/cooling and internet, 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, gender, disabilities, age, sexual orientation, or create new forms of discriminatory impacts. However, AI systems provided for by Union law for the purpose of detecting fraud in the offering of financial services should not be considered as high-risk under this Regulation. Natural persons applying for or receiving public assistance benefits and services from public authorities, including healthcare services and essential services, including but not limited to housing, electricity, heating/cooling and internet, 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. Similarly, AI systems intended to be used to make decisions or materially influence decisions on the eligibility of natural persons for health and life insurance may also have a significant impact on persons’ livelihood and may infringe their fundamental rights such as by limiting access to healthcare or by perpetuating discrimination based on personal characteristics. 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 evaluate and classify emergency calls by natural persons or 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. Amendment 68 Proposal for a regulation Recital 37 a (new) (37a)  Given the role and responsibility of police and judicial authorities, and the impact of decisions they take for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, some specific use-cases of AI applications in law enforcement has to be classified as high-risk, in particular in instances where there is the potential to significantly affect the lives or the fundamental rights of individuals. Amendment 69 Proposal for a regulation Recital 38 (38)  Actions by law enforcement authorities involving certain uses of AI systems are characterised by a significant degree of power imbalance and may lead to surveillance, arrest or deprivation of a natural person’s liberty as well as other adverse impacts on fundamental rights guaranteed in the Charter. In particular, if the AI system is not trained with high quality data, does not meet adequate requirements in terms of its accuracy or robustness, or is not properly designed and tested before being put on the market or otherwise put into service, it may single out people in a discriminatory or otherwise incorrect or unjust manner. Furthermore, the exercise of important procedural fundamental rights, such as the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial as well as the right of defence and the presumption of innocence, could be hampered, in particular, where such AI systems are not sufficiently transparent, explainable and documented. It is therefore appropriate to classify as high-risk a number of AI systems intended to be used in the law enforcement context where accuracy, reliability and transparency is particularly important to avoid adverse impacts, retain public trust and ensure accountability and effective redress. In view of the nature of the activities in question and the risks relating thereto, those high-risk AI systems should include in particular AI systems intended to be used by law enforcement authorities for individual risk assessments, polygraphs and similar tools or to detect the emotional state of natural person, to detect ‘deep fakes’, for the evaluation of the reliability of evidence in criminal proceedings, for predicting the occurrence or reoccurrence of an actual or potential criminal offence based on profiling of natural persons, or assessing personality traits and characteristics or past criminal behaviour of natural persons or groups, for profiling in the course of detection, investigation or prosecution of criminal offences, as well as for crime analytics regarding natural persons. AI systems specifically intended to be used for administrative proceedings by tax and customs authorities should not be considered high-risk AI systems used by law enforcement authorities for the purposes of prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of criminal offences. (38)  Actions by law enforcement authorities involving certain uses of AI systems are characterised by a significant degree of power imbalance and may lead to surveillance, arrest or deprivation of a natural person’s liberty as well as other adverse impacts on fundamental rights guaranteed in the Charter. In particular, if the AI system is not trained with high quality data, does not meet adequate requirements in terms of its performance, 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 or on behalf of law enforcement authorities or by Union agencies, offices or bodies in support of law enforcement authorities, as polygraphs and similar tools insofar as their use is permitted under relevant Union and national law, for the evaluation of the reliability of evidence in criminal proceedings, for profiling in the course of detection, investigation or prosecution of criminal offences, as well as for crime analytics regarding natural persons. AI systems specifically intended to be used for administrative proceedings by tax and customs authorities should not be classified as high-risk AI systems used by law enforcement authorities for the purposes of prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of criminal offences. The use of AI tools by law enforcement and judicial authorities should not become a factor of inequality, social fracture or exclusion. The impact of the use of AI tools on the defence rights of suspects should not be ignored, notably the difficulty in obtaining meaningful information on their functioning and the consequent difficulty in challenging their results in court, in particular by individuals under investigation. Amendment 70 Proposal for a regulation Recital 39 (39)  AI systems used in migration, asylum and border control management affect people who are often in particularly vulnerable position and who are dependent on the outcome of the actions of the competent public authorities. The accuracy, non-discriminatory nature and transparency of the AI systems used in those contexts are therefore particularly important to guarantee the respect of the fundamental rights of the affected persons, notably their rights to free movement, non-discrimination, protection of private life and personal data, international protection and good administration. It is therefore appropriate to classify as high-risk AI systems intended to be used by the competent public authorities charged with tasks in the fields of migration, asylum and border control management as polygraphs and similar tools or to detect the emotional state of a natural person; for assessing certain risks posed by natural persons entering the territory of a Member State or applying for visa or asylum; for verifying the authenticity of the relevant documents of natural persons; for assisting competent public authorities for the examination of applications for asylum, visa and residence permits and associated complaints with regard to the objective to establish the eligibility of the natural persons applying for a status. AI systems in the area of migration, asylum and border control management covered by this Regulation should comply with the relevant procedural requirements set by the Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council49 , the Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council50 and other relevant legislation. (39)  AI systems used in migration, asylum and border control management affect people who are often in 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 or on behalf of competent public authorities or by Union agencies, offices or bodies charged with tasks in the fields of migration, asylum and border control management as polygraphs and similar tools insofar as their use is permitted under relevant Union and national law, 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 and assessment of the veracity of evidence in relation to 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; for monitoring, surveilling or processing personal data in the context of border management activities, for the purpose of detecting, recognising or identifying natural persons; for the forecasting or prediction of trends related to migration movements and border crossings. AI systems in the area of migration, asylum and border control management covered by this Regulation should comply with the relevant procedural requirements set by the Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council49 , the Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council50 and other relevant legislation. The use of AI systems in migration, asylum and border control management should in no circumstances be used by Member States or Union institutions, agencies or bodies as a means to circumvent their international obligations under the Convention of 28 July 1951 relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the Protocol of 31 January 1967, nor should they be used to in any way infringe on the principle of non-refoulement, or or deny safe and effective legal avenues into the territory of the Union, including the right to international protection. __________________ __________________ 49 Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ L 180, 29.6.2013, p. 60). 49 Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ L 180, 29.6.2013, p. 60). 50 Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code) (OJ L 243, 15.9.2009, p. 1). 50 Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code) (OJ L 243, 15.9.2009, p. 1). Amendment 71 Proposal for a regulation Recital 40 (40)  Certain AI systems intended for the administration of justice and democratic processes should be classified as high-risk, considering their potentially significant impact on democracy, rule of law, individual freedoms as well as the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial. In particular, to address the risks of potential biases, errors and opacity, it is appropriate to qualify as high-risk AI systems intended to assist judicial authorities in researching and interpreting facts and the law and in applying the law to a concrete set of facts. Such qualification should not extend, however, to AI systems intended for purely ancillary administrative activities that do not affect the actual administration of justice in individual cases, such as anonymisation or pseudonymisation of judicial decisions, documents or data, communication between personnel, administrative tasks or allocation of resources. (40)  Certain AI systems intended for the administration of justice and democratic processes should be classified as high-risk, considering their potentially significant impact on democracy, rule of law, individual freedoms as well as the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial. In particular, to address the risks of potential biases, errors and opacity, it is appropriate to qualify as high-risk AI systems intended to be used by a judicial authority or administrative body or on their behalf to assist judicial authorities or administrative bodies in researching and interpreting facts and the law and in applying the law to a concrete set of facts or used in a similar way in alternative dispute resolution. The use of artificial intelligence tools can support, but should not replace the decision-making power of judges or judicial independence, as the final decision-making must remain a human-driven activity and decision. 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. Amendment 72 Proposal for a regulation Recital 40 a (new) (40a)  In order to address the risks of undue external interference to the right to vote enshrined in Article 39 of the Charter, and of disproportionate effects on democratic processes, democracy, and the rule of law, AI systems intended to be used to influence the outcome of an election or referendum or the voting behaviour of natural persons in the exercise of their vote in elections or referenda should be classified as high-risk AI systems. with the exception of AI systems whose output natural persons are not directly exposed to, such as tools used to organise, optimise and structure political campaigns from an administrative and logistical point of view. Amendment 73 Proposal for a regulation Recital 40 b (new) (40b)  Considering the scale of natural persons using the services provided by social media platforms designated as very large online platforms, such online platforms can be used in a way that strongly influences safety online, the shaping of public opinion and discourse, election and democratic processes and societal concerns. It is therefore appropriate that AI systems used by those online platforms in their recommender systems are subject to this Regulation so as to ensure that the AI systems comply with the requirements laid down under this Regulation, including the technical requirements on data governance, technical documentation and traceability, transparency, human oversight, accuracy and robustness. Compliance with this Regulation should enable such very large online platforms to comply with their broader risk assessment and risk-mitigation obligations in Article 34 and 35 of Regulation EU 2022/2065. The obligations in this Regulation are without prejudice to Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 and should complement the obligations required under the Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 when the social media platform has been designated as a very large online platform. Given the European-wide impact of social media platforms designated as very large online platforms, the authorities designated under Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 should act as enforcement authorities for the purposes of enforcing this provision. Amendment 74 Proposal for a regulation Recital 41 (41)  The fact that an AI system is classified as high risk under this Regulation should not be interpreted as indicating that the use of the system is necessarily lawful under other acts of Union law or under national law compatible with Union law, such as on the protection of personal data, on the use of polygraphs and similar tools or other systems to detect the emotional state of natural persons. Any such use should continue to occur solely in accordance with the applicable requirements resulting from the Charter and from the applicable acts of secondary Union law and national law. This Regulation should not be understood as providing for the legal ground for processing of personal data, including special categories of personal data, where relevant. (41)  The fact that an AI system is classified as a high risk AI system under this Regulation should not be interpreted as indicating that the use of the system is necessarily lawful or unlawful under other acts of Union law or under national law compatible with Union law, such as on the protection of personal data, Any such use should continue to occur solely in accordance with the applicable requirements resulting from the Charter and from the applicable acts of secondary Union law and national law. Amendment 75 Proposal for a regulation Recital 41 a (new) (41a)  A number of legally binding rules at European, national and international level already apply or are relevant to AI systems today, including but not limited to EU primary law (the Treaties of the European Union and its Charter of Fundamental Rights), EU secondary law (such as the General Data Protection Regulation, the Product Liability Directive, the Regulation on the Free Flow of Non-Personal Data, anti-discrimination Directives, consumer law and Safety and Health at Work Directives), the UN Human Rights treaties and the Council of Europe conventions (such as the European Convention on Human Rights), and national law. Besides horizontally applicable rules, various domain-specific rules exist that apply to particular AI applications (such as for instance the Medical Device Regulation in the healthcare sector). Amendment 76 Proposal for a regulation Recital 42 (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. (42)  To mitigate the risks from high-risk AI systems placed or otherwise put into service on the Union market for deployers and affected persons, certain mandatory requirements should apply, taking into account the intended purpose, the reasonably foreseeable misuse of the system and according to the risk management system to be established by the provider. These requirements should be objective-driven, fit for purpose, reasonable and effective, without adding undue regulatory burdens or costs on operators. Amendment 77 Proposal for a regulation Recital 43 (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. (43)  Requirements should apply to high-risk AI systems as regards the quality and relevance of data sets used, technical documentation and record-keeping, transparency and the provision of information to deployers, human oversight, and robustness, accuracy and cybersecurity. Those requirements are necessary to effectively mitigate the risks for health, safety and fundamental rights, as well as the environment, democracy and rule of law, as applicable in the light of the intended purpose or reasonably foreseeable misuse of the system, and no other less trade restrictive measures are reasonably available, thus avoiding unjustified restrictions to trade. Amendment 78 Proposal for a regulation Recital 44 (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. (44)  Access to data of high quality plays a vital role in providing structure and in ensuring 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 a 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, and where applicable, validation and testing data sets, including the labels, should be sufficiently relevant, representative, appropriately vetted for errors and as complete as possible 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 in relation to whom the high-risk AI system is intended to be used, with specific attention to the mitigation of possible biases in the datasets, that might lead to risks to fundamental rights or discriminatory outcomes for the persons affected by the high-risk AI system. Biases can for example be inherent in underlying datasets, especially when historical data is being used, introduced by the developers of the algorithms, or generated when the systems are implemented in real world settings. Results provided by AI systems are influenced by such inherent biases that are inclined to gradually increase and thereby perpetuate and amplify existing discrimination, in particular for persons belonging to certain vulnerable or ethnic groups, or racialised communities. 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, contextal, 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 should, exceptionally and following the application of all applicable conditions laid down under this Regulation and in Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Directive (EU) 2016/680 and Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, be able to process also special categories of personal data, as a matter of substantial public interest, in order to ensure the negative bias detection and correction in relation to high-risk AI systems. Negative bias should be understood as bias that create direct or indirect discriminatory effect against a natural person The requirements related to data governance can be complied with by having recourse to third-parties that offer certified compliance services including verification of data governance, data set integrity, and data training, validation and testing practices. Amendment 79 Proposal for a regulation Recital 45 (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. (45)  For the development and assessment 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. Amendment 80 Proposal for a regulation Recital 45 a (new) (45a)  The right to privacy and to protection of personal data must be guaranteed throughout the entire lifecycle of the AI system. In this regard, the principles of data minimisation and data protection by design and by default, as set out in Union data protection law, are essential when the processing of data involves significant risks to the fundamental rights of individuals. Providers and users of AI systems should implement state-of-the-art technical and organisational measures in order to protect those rights. Such measures should include not only anonymisation and encryption, but also the use of increasingly available technology that permits algorithms to be brought to the data and allows valuable insights to be derived without the transmission between parties or unnecessary copying of the raw or structured data themselves. Amendment 81 Proposal for a regulation Recital 46 (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. (46)  Having comprehensible information on how high-risk AI systems have been developed and how they perform throughout their lifetime 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 appropriately throughout the lifecycle of the AI system. AI systems can have a large important environmental impact and high energy consumption during their lifecyle. In order to better apprehend the impact of AI systems on the environment, the technical documentation drafted by providers should include information on the energy consumption of the AI system, including the consumption during development and expected consumption during use. Such information should take into account the relevant Union and national legislation. This reported information should be comprehensible, comparable and verifiable and to that end, the Commission should develop guidelines on a harmonised metholodogy for calculation and reporting of this information. To ensure that a single documentation is possible, terms and definitions related to the required documentation and any required documentation in the relevant Union legislation should be aligned as much as possible. Amendment 82 Proposal for a regulation Recital 46 a (new) (46a)  AI systems should take into account state-of-the art methods and relevant applicable standards to reduce the energy use, resource use and waste, as well as to increase their energy efficiency and the overall efficiency of the system. The environmental aspects of AI systems that are significant for the purposes of this Regulation are the energy consumption of the AI system in the development, training and deployment phase as well as the recording and reporting and storing of this data. The design of AI systems should enable the measurement and logging of the consumption of energy and resources at each stage of development, training and deployment. The monitoring and reporting of the emissions of AI systems must be robust, transparent, consistent and accurate. In order to ensure the uniform application of this Regulation and stable legal ecosystem for providers and deployers in the Single Market, the Commission should develop a common specification for the methodology to fulfil the reporting and documentation requirement on the consumption of energy and resources during development, training and deployment. Such common specifications on measurement methodology can develop a baseline upon which the Commission can better decide if future regulatory interventions are needed, upon conducting an impact assessment that takes into account existing law. Amendment 83 Proposal for a regulation Recital 46 b (new) (46b)  In order to achieve the objectives of this Regulation, and contribute to the Union’s environmental objectives while ensuring the smooth functioning of the internal market, it may be necessary to establish recommendations and guidelines and, eventually, targets for sustainability. For that purpose the Commission is entitled to develop a methodology to contribute towards having Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and a reference for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The goal should be in the first instance to enable fair comparison between AI implementation choices providing incentives to promote using more efficient AI technologies addressing energy and resource concerns. To meet this objective this Regulation should provide the means to establish a baseline collection of data reported on the emissions from development and training and for deployment. Amendment 84 Proposal for a regulation Recital 47 a (new) (47a)  Such requirements on transparency and on the explicability of AI decision-making should also help to counter the deterrent effects of digital asymmetry and so-called ‘dark patterns’ targeting individuals and their informed consent. Amendment 85 Proposal for a regulation Recital 49 (49)  High-risk AI systems should perform consistently throughout their lifecycle and meet an appropriate level of accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity in accordance with the generally acknowledged state of the art. The level of accuracy and accuracy metrics should be communicated to the users. (49)  High-risk AI systems should perform consistently throughout their lifecycle and meet an appropriate level of accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity in accordance with the generally acknowledged state of the art. Performance metrics and their expected level should be defined with the primary objective to mitigate risks and negative impact of the AI system. The expected level of performance metrics should be communicated in a clear, transparent, easily understandable and intelligible way to the deployers. The declaration of performance metrics cannot be considered proof of future levels, but relevant methods need to be applied to ensure consistent levels during use While standardisation organisations exist to establish standards, coordination on benchmarking is needed to establish how these standardised requirements and characteristics of AI systems should be measured. The European Artificial Intelligence Office should bring together national and international metrology and benchmarking authorities and provide non-binding guidance to address the technical aspects of how to measure the appropriate levels of performance and robustness. Amendment 86 Proposal for a regulation Recital 50 (50)  The technical robustness is a key requirement for high-risk AI systems. They should be resilient against risks connected to the limitations of the system (e.g. errors, faults, inconsistencies, unexpected situations) as well as against malicious actions that may compromise the security of the AI system and result in harmful or otherwise undesirable behaviour. Failure to protect against these risks could lead to safety impacts or negatively affect the fundamental rights, for example due to erroneous decisions or wrong or biased outputs generated by the AI system. (50)  The technical robustness is a key requirement for high-risk AI systems. They should be resilient against risks connected to the limitations of the system (e.g. errors, faults, inconsistencies, unexpected situations) as well as against malicious actions that may compromise the security of the AI system and result in harmful or otherwise undesirable behaviour. Failure to protect against these risks could lead to safety impacts or negatively affect the fundamental rights, for example due to erroneous decisions or wrong or biased outputs generated by the AI system. Users of the AI system should take steps to ensure that the possible trade-off between robustness and accuracy does not lead to discriminatory or negative outcomes for minority subgroups. Amendment 87 Proposal for a regulation Recital 51 (51)  Cybersecurity plays a crucial role in ensuring that AI systems are resilient against attempts to alter their use, behaviour, performance or compromise their security properties by malicious third parties exploiting the system’s vulnerabilities. Cyberattacks against AI systems can leverage AI specific assets, such as training data sets (e.g. data poisoning) or trained models (e.g. adversarial attacks), or exploit vulnerabilities in the AI system’s digital assets or the underlying ICT infrastructure. To ensure a level of cybersecurity appropriate to the risks, suitable measures should therefore be taken by the providers of high-risk AI systems, also taking into account as appropriate the underlying ICT infrastructure. (51)  Cybersecurity plays a crucial role in ensuring that AI systems are resilient against attempts to alter their use, behaviour, performance or compromise their security properties by malicious third parties exploiting the system’s vulnerabilities. Cyberattacks against AI systems can leverage AI specific assets, such as training data sets (e.g. data poisoning) or trained models (e.g. adversarial attacks or confidentiality attacks), or exploit vulnerabilities in the AI system’s digital assets or the underlying ICT infrastructure. To ensure a level of cybersecurity appropriate to the risks, suitable measures should therefore be taken by the providers of high-risk AI systems, as well as the notified bodies, competent national authorities and market surveillance authorities, also taking into account as appropriate the underlying ICT infrastructure. High-risk AI should be accompanied by security solutions and patches for the lifetime of the product, or in case of the absence of dependence on a specific product, for a time that needs to be stated by the manufacturer. Amendment 88 Proposal for a regulation Recital 53 a (new) (53a)  As signatories to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), the Union and the Member States are legally obliged to protect persons with disabilities from discrilmination and promote their equality, to ensure that persons with disabilities have access, on an equal basis wirh others, to information and communications technologies and systems, and to ensure respect for privacy for persons with disabilities. Given the growing importance and use of AI systems, the application of universal design principles to all new technologies and services should ensure full, equal, and unrestricted access for everyone potentially affected by or using AI technologies, including persons with disabilities, in a way that takes full account of their inherent dignity and diversity. It is therefore essential that Providers ensure full compliance with accessibility requirements, including Directive (EU) 2016/2102 and Directive (EU) 2019/882. Providers should ensure compliance with these requirements by design. Therefore, the necessary measures should be integrated as much as possible into the design of the high-risk AI system. Amendment 89 Proposal for a regulation Recital 54 (54)  The provider should establish a sound quality management system, ensure the accomplishment of the required conformity assessment procedure, draw up the relevant documentation and establish a robust post-market monitoring system. Public authorities which put into service high-risk AI systems for their own use may adopt and implement the rules for the quality management system as part of the quality management system adopted at a national or regional level, as appropriate, taking into account the specificities of the sector and the competences and organisation of the public authority in question. (54)  The provider should establish a sound quality management system, ensure the accomplishment of the required conformity assessment procedure, draw up the relevant documentation and establish a robust post-market monitoring system. For providers that have already in place quality management systems based on standards such as ISO 9001 or other relevant standards, no duplicative quality management system in full should be expected but rather an adaptation of their existing systems to certain aspects linked to compliance with specific requirements of this Regulation. This should also be reflected in future standardization activities or guidance adopted by the Commission in this respect. Public authorities which put into service high-risk AI systems for their own use may adopt and implement the rules for the quality management system as part of the quality management system adopted at a national or regional level, as appropriate, taking into account the specificities of the sector and the competences and organisation of the public authority in question. Amendment 90 Proposal for a regulation Recital 56 (56)  To enable enforcement of this Regulation and create a level-playing field for operators, and taking into account the different forms of making available of digital products, it is important to ensure that, under all circumstances, a person established in the Union can provide authorities with all the necessary information on the compliance of an AI system. Therefore, prior to making their AI systems available in the Union, where an importer cannot be identified, providers established outside the Union shall, by written mandate, appoint an authorised representative established in the Union. (56)  To enable enforcement of this Regulation and create a level-playing field for operators, and taking into account the different forms of making available of digital products, it is important to ensure that, under all circumstances, a person established in the Union can provide authorities with all the necessary information on the compliance of an AI system. Therefore, prior to making their AI systems available in the Union, providers established outside the Union shall, by written mandate, appoint an authorised representative established in the Union. Amendment 91 Proposal for a regulation Recital 58 (58)  Given the nature of AI systems and the risks to safety and fundamental rights possibly associated with their use, including as regard the need to ensure proper monitoring of the performance of an AI system in a real-life setting, it is appropriate to set specific responsibilities for users. Users should in particular use high-risk AI systems in accordance with the instructions of use and certain other obligations should be provided for with regard to monitoring of the functioning of the AI systems and with regard to record-keeping, as appropriate. (58)  Given the nature of AI systems and the risks to safety and fundamental rights possibly associated with their use, including as regards the need to ensure proper monitoring of the performance of an AI system in a real-life setting, it is appropriate to set specific responsibilities for deployers. Deployers should in particular use high-risk AI systems in accordance with the instructions of use and certain other obligations should be provided for with regard to monitoring of the functioning of the AI systems and with regard to record-keeping, as appropriate. Amendment 92 Proposal for a regulation Recital 58 a (new) (58a)  Whilst risks related to AI systems can result from the way such systems are designed, risks can as well stem from how such AI systems are used. Deployers of high-risk AI system therefore play a critical role in ensuring that fundamental rights are protected, complementing the obligations of the provider when developing the AI system. Deployers are best placed to understand how the high-risk AI system will be used concretely and can therefore identify potential significant risks that were not foreseen in the development phase, due to a more precise knowledge of the context of use, the people or groups of people likely to be affected, including marginalised and vulnerable groups. Deployers should identify appropriate governance structures in that specific context of use, such as arrangements for human oversight, complaint-handling procedures and redress procedures, because choices in the governance structures can be instrumental in mitigating risks to fundamental rights in concrete use-cases. In order to efficiently ensure that fundamental rights are protected, the deployer of high-risk AI systems should therefore carry out a fundamental rights impact assessment prior to putting it into use. The impact assessment should be accompanied by a detailed plan describing the measures or tools that will help mitigating the risks to fundamental rights identified at the latest from the time of putting it into use. If such plan cannot be identified, the deployer should refrain from putting the system into use. When performing this impact assessment, the deployer should notify the national supervisory authority and, to the best extent possible relevant stakeholders as well as representatives of groups of persons likely to be affected by the AI system in order to collect relevant information which is deemed necessary to perform the impact assessment and are encouraged to make the summary of their fundamental rights impact assessment publicly available on their online website. This obligations should not apply to SMEs which, given the lack of resrouces, might find it difficult to perform such consultation. Nevertheless, they should also strive to invole such representatives when carrying out their fundamental rights impact assessment.In addition, given the potential impact and the need for democratic oversight and scrutiny, deployers of high-risk AI systems that are public authorities or Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, as well deployers who are undertakings designated as a gatekeeper under Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 should be required to register the use of any high-risk AI system in a public database. Other deployers may voluntarily register. Amendment 93 Proposal for a regulation Recital 59 (59)  It is appropriate to envisage that the user of the AI system should be the natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body under whose authority the AI system is operated except where the use is made in the course of a personal non-professional activity. (59)  It is appropriate to envisage that the deployer of the AI system should be the natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body under whose authority the AI system is operated except where the use is made in the course of a personal non-professional activity. Amendment 94 Proposal for a regulation Recital 60 (60)  In the light of the complexity of the artificial intelligence value chain, relevant third parties, notably the ones involved in the sale and the supply of software, software tools and components, pre-trained models and data, or providers of network services, should cooperate, as appropriate, with providers and users to enable their compliance with the obligations under this Regulation and with competent authorities established under this Regulation. (60)  Within the AI value chain multiple entities often supply tools and services but also components or processes that are then incorporated by the provider into the AI system, including in relation to data collection and pre-processing, model training, model retraining, model testing and evaluation, integration into software, or other aspects of model development. The involved entities may make their offering commercially available directly or indirectly, through interfaces, such as Application Programming Interfaces (API), and distributed under free and open source licenses but also more and more by AI workforce platforms, trained parameters resale, DIY kits to build models or the offering of paying access to a model serving architecture to develop and train models. In the light of this complexity of the AI value chain, all relevant third parties, in particular those that are involved in the development, sale and the commercial supply of software tools, components, pre-trained models or data incorporated into the AI system, or providers of network services, should without compromising their own intellectual property rights or trade secrets, make available the required information, training or expertise and cooperate, as appropriate, with providers to enable their control over all compliance relevant aspects of the AI system that falls under this Regulation. To allow a cost-effective AI value chain governance, the level of control shall be explicitly disclosed by each third party that supplies the provider with a tool, service, component or process that is later incorporated by the provider into the AI system. Amendment 95 Proposal for a regulation Recital 60 a (new) (60a)  Where one party is in a stronger bargaining position, there is a risk that that party could leverage such position to the detriment of the other contracting party when negotiating the supply of tools, services, components or processes that are used or integrated in a high risk AI system or the remedies for the breach or the termination of related obligations. Such contractual imbalances particularly harm micro, small and medium-sized enterprises as well as start-ups, unless they are owned or sub-contracted by an enterprise which is able to compensate the sub-contractor appropriately, as they are without a meaningful ability to negotiate the conditions of the contractual agreement, and may have no other choice than to accept ‘take-it-or-leave-it’ contractual terms. Therefore, unfair contract terms regulating the supply of tools, services, components or processes that are used or integrated in a high risk AI system or the remedies for the breach or the termination of related obligations should not be binding to such micro, small or medium-sized enterprises and start-ups when they have been unilaterally imposed on them. Amendment 96 Proposal for a regulation Recital 60 b (new) (60b)  Rules on contractual terms should take into account the principle of contractual freedom as an essential concept in business-to-business relationships. Therefore, not all contractual terms should be subject to an unfairness test, but only to those terms that are unilaterally imposed on micro, small and medium-sized enterprises and start-ups. This concerns ‘take-it-or-leave-it’ situations where one party supplies a certain contractual term and the micro, small or medium-sized enterprise and start-up cannot influence the content of that term despite an attempt to negotiate it. A contractual term that is simply provided by one party and accepted by the micro, small, medium-sized enterprise or a start-up or a term that is negotiated and subsequently agreed in an amended way between contracting parties should not be considered as unilaterally imposed. Amendment 97 Proposal for a regulation Recital 60 c (new) (60c)  Furthermore, the rules on unfair contractual terms should only apply to those elements of a contract that are related to supply of tools, services, components or processes that are used or integrated in a high risk AI system or the remedies for the breach or the termination of related obligations. Other parts of the same contract, unrelated to these elements, should not be subject to the unfairness test laid down in this Regulation. Amendment 98 Proposal for a regulation Recital 60 d (new) (60d)  Criteria to identify unfair contractual terms should be applied only to excessive contractual terms, where a stronger bargaining position is abused. The vast majority of contractual terms that are commercially more favourable to one party than to the other, including those that are normal in business-to-business contracts, are a normal expression of the principle of contractual freedom and continue to apply. If a contractual term is not included in the list of terms that are always considered unfair, the general unfairness provision applies. In this regard, the terms listed as unfair terms should serve as a yardstick to interpret the general unfairness provision. Amendment 99 Proposal for a regulation Recital 60 e (new) (60e)  Foundation models are a recent development, in which AI models are developed from algorithms designed to optimize for generality and versatility of output. Those models are often trained on a broad range of data sources and large amounts of data to accomplish a wide range of downstream tasks, including some for which they were not specifically developed and trained. The foundation model can be unimodal or multimodal, trained through various methods such as supervised learning or reinforced learning. AI systems with specific intended purpose or general purpose AI systems can be an implementation of a foundation model, which means that each foundation model can be reused in countless downstream AI or general purpose AI systems. These models hold growing importance to many downstream applications and systems. Amendment 100 Proposal for a regulation Recital 60 f (new) (60f)  In the case of foundation models provided as a service such as through API access, the cooperation with downstream providers should extend throughout the time during which that service is provided and supported, in order to enable appropriate risk mitigation, unless the provider of the foundation model transfers the training model as well as extensive and appropriate information on the datasets and the development process of the system or restricts the service, such as the API access, in such a way that the downstream provider is able to fully comply with this Regulation without further support from the original provider of the foundation model. Amendment 101 Proposal for a regulation Recital 60 g (new) (60g)  In light of the nature and complexity of the value chain for AI system, it is essential to clarify the role of actors contributing to the development of AI systems. There is significant uncertainty as to the way foundation models will evolve, both in terms of typology of models and in terms of self-governance. Therefore, it is essential to clarify the legal situation of providers of foundation models. Combined with their complexity and unexpected impact, the downstream AI provider’s lack of control over the foundation model’s development and the consequent power imbalance and in order to ensure a fair sharing of responsibilities along the AI value chain, such models should be subject to proportionate and more specific requirements and obligations under this Regulation, namely foundation models should assess and mitigate possible risks and harms through appropriate design, testing and analysis, should implement data governance measures, including assessment of biases, and should comply with technical design requirements to ensure appropriate levels of performance, predictability, interpretability, corrigibility, safety and cybersecurity and should comply with environmental standards. These obligations should be accompanied by standards. Also, foundation models should have information obligations and prepare all necessary technical documentation for potential downstream providers to be able to comply with their obligations under this Regulation. Generative foundation models should ensure transparency about the fact the content is generated by an AI system, not by humans. These specific requirements and obligations do not amount to considering foundation models as high risk AI systems, but should guarantee that the objectives of this Regulation to ensure a high level of protection of fundamental rights, health and safety, environment, democracy and rule of law are achieved. Pre-trained models developed for a narrower, less general, more limited set of applications that cannot be adapted for a wide range of tasks such as simple multi-purpose AI systems should not be considered foundation models for the purposes of this Regulation, because of their greater interpretability which makes their behaviour less unpredictable. Amendment 102 Proposal for a regulation Recital 60 h (new) (60h)  Given the nature of foundation models, expertise in conformity assessment is lacking and third-party auditing methods are still under development . The sector itself is therefore developing new ways to assess fundamental models that fulfil in part the objective of auditing (such as model evaluation, red-teaming or machine learning verification and validation techniques). Those internal assessments for foundation models should be should be broadly applicable (e.g. independent of distribution channels, modality, development methods), to address risks specific to such models taking into account industry state-of-the-art practices and focus on developing sufficient technical understanding and control over the model, the management of reasonably foreseeable risks, and extensive analysis and testing of the model through appropriate measures, such as by the involvement of independent evaluators. As foundation models are a new and fast-evolving development in the field of artificial intelligence, it is appropriate for the Commission and the AI Office to monitor and periodically asses the legislative and governance framework of such models and in particular of generative AI systems based on such models, which raise significant questions related to the generation of content in breach of Union law, copyright rules, and potential misuse. It should be clarified that this Regulation should be without prejudice to Union law on copyright and related rights, including Directives 2001/29/EC, 2004/48/ECR and (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council. Amendment 103 Proposal for a regulation Recital 61 (61)  Standardisation should play a key role to provide technical solutions to providers to ensure compliance with this Regulation. Compliance with harmonised standards as defined in Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council54 should be a means for providers to demonstrate conformity with the requirements of this Regulation. However, the Commission could adopt common technical specifications in areas where no harmonised standards exist or where they are insufficient. (61)  Standardisation should play a key role to provide technical solutions to providers to ensure compliance with this Regulation. Compliance with harmonised standards as defined in Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council[1] should be a means for providers to demonstrate conformity with the requirements of this Regulation. To ensure the effectiveness of standards as policy tool for the Union and considering the importance of standards for ensuring conformity with the requirements of this Regulation and for the competitiveness of undertakings, it is necessary to ensure a balanced representation of interests by involving all relevant stakeholders in the development of standards. The standardisation process should be transparent in terms of legal and natural persons participating in the standardisation activities. __________________ __________________ 54 Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on European standardisation, amending Council Directives 89/686/EEC and 93/15/EEC and Directives 94/9/EC, 94/25/EC, 95/16/EC, 97/23/EC, 98/34/EC, 2004/22/EC, 2007/23/EC, 2009/23/EC and 2009/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Decision 87/95/EEC and Decision No 1673/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 316, 14.11.2012, p. 12). 54 Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on European standardisation, amending Council Directives 89/686/EEC and 93/15/EEC and Directives 94/9/EC, 94/25/EC, 95/16/EC, 97/23/EC, 98/34/EC, 2004/22/EC, 2007/23/EC, 2009/23/EC and 2009/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Decision 87/95/EEC and Decision No 1673/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 316, 14.11.2012, p. 12). Amendment 104 Proposal for a regulation Recital 61 a (new) (61a)  In order to facilitate compliance, the first standardisation requests should be issued by the Commission two months after the entry into force of this Regulation at the latest. This should serve to improve legal certainty, thereby promoting investment and innovation in AI, as well as competitiveness and growth of the Union market, while enhancing multistakeholder governance representing all relevant European stakeholders such as the AI Office, European standardisation organisations and bodies or experts groups established under relevant sectorial Union law as well as industry, SMEs, start-ups, civil society, researchers and social partners, and should ultimately facilitate global cooperation on standardisation in the field of AI in a manner consistent with Union values. When preparing the standardisation request, the Commission should consult the AI Office and the AI advisory Forum in order to collect relevant expertise. Amendment 105 Proposal for a regulation Recital 61 b (new) (61b)  When AI systems are intended to be used at the workplace, harmonised standards should be limited to technical specifications and procedures. Amendment 106 Proposal for a regulation Recital 61 c (new) (61c)  The Commission should be able to adopt common specifications under certain conditions, when no relevant harmonised standard exists or to address specific fundamental rights concerns. Through the whole drafting process, the Commission should regularly consult the AI Office and its advisory forum, the European standardisation organisations and bodies or expert groups established under relevant sectorial Union law as well as relevant stakeholders, such as industry, SMEs, start-ups, civil society, researchers and social partners. Amendment 107 Proposal for a regulation Recital 61 d (new) (61d)  When adopting common specifications, the Commission should strive for regulatory alignment of AI with likeminded global partners, which is key to fostering innovation and cross-border partnerships within the field of AI, as coordination with likeminded partners in international standardisation bodies is of great importance. Amendment 108 Proposal for a regulation Recital 62 (62)  In order to ensure a high level of trustworthiness of high-risk AI systems, those systems should be subject to a conformity assessment prior to their placing on the market or putting into service. (62)  In order to ensure a high level of trustworthiness of high-risk AI systems, those systems should be subject to a conformity assessment prior to their placing on the market or putting into service. To increase the trust in the value chain and to give certainty to businesses about the performance of their systems, third-parties that supply AI components may voluntarily apply for a third-party conformity assessment. Amendment 109 Proposal for a regulation Recital 64 (64)  Given the more extensive experience of professional pre-market certifiers in the field of product safety and the different nature of risks involved, it is appropriate to limit, at least in an initial phase of application of this Regulation, the scope of application of third-party conformity assessment for high-risk AI systems other than those related to products. Therefore, the conformity assessment of such systems should be carried out as a general rule by the provider under its own responsibility, with the only exception of AI systems intended to be used for the remote biometric identification of persons, for which the involvement of a notified body in the conformity assessment should be foreseen, to the extent they are not prohibited. (64)  Given the complexity of high-risk AI systems and the risks that are associated to them, it is essential to develop a more adequate capacity for the application of third party conformity assessment for high-risk AI systems. However, given the current experience of professional pre-market certifiers in the field of product safety and the different nature of risks involved, it is appropriate to limit, at least in an initial phase of application of this Regulation, the scope of application of third-party conformity assessment for high-risk AI systems other than those related to products. Therefore, the conformity assessment of such systems should be carried out as a general rule by the provider under its own responsibility, with the only exception of AI systems intended to be used for the remote biometric identification of persons, or AI systems intended to be used to make inferences about personal characteristics of natural persons on the basis of biometric or biometrics-based data, including emotion recognition systems for which the involvement of a notified body in the conformity assessment should be foreseen, to the extent they are not prohibited Amendment 110 Proposal for a regulation Recital 65 (65)  In order to carry out third-party conformity assessment for AI systems intended to be used for the remote biometric identification of persons, notified bodies should be designated under this Regulation by the national competent authorities, provided they are compliant with a set of requirements, notably on independence, competence and absence of conflicts of interests. (65)  In order to carry out third-party conformity assessments when so required, notified bodies should be designated under this Regulation by the national competent authorities, provided they are compliant with a set of requirements, notably on independence, competence, absence of conflicts of interests and minimum cybersecurity requirements. Member States should encourage the designation of a sufficient number of conformity assessment bodies, in order to make the certification feasible in a timely manner. The procedures of assessment, designation, notification and monitoring of conformity assessment bodies should be implemented as uniformly as possible in Member States, with a view to removing administrative border barriers and ensuring that the potential of the internal market is realised. Amendment 111 Proposal for a regulation Recital 65 a (new) (65a)  In line with Union commitments under the World Trade Organization Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, it is adequate to maximise the acceptance of test results produced by competent conformity assessment bodies, independent of the territory in which they are established, where necessary to demonstrate conformity with the applicable requirements of the Regulation. The Commission should actively explore possible international instruments for that purpose and in particular pursue the possible establishment of mutual recognition agreements with countries which are on a comparable level of technical development, and have compatible approach concerning AI and conformity assessment. Amendment 112 Proposal for a regulation Recital 66 (66)  In line with the commonly established notion of substantial modification for products regulated by Union harmonisation legislation, it is appropriate that an AI system undergoes a new conformity assessment whenever a change occurs which may affect the compliance of the system with this Regulation or when the intended purpose of the system changes. In addition, as regards AI systems which continue to ‘learn’ after being placed on the market or put into service (i.e. they automatically adapt how functions are carried out), it is necessary to provide rules establishing that changes to the algorithm and its performance that have been pre-determined by the provider and assessed at the moment of the conformity assessment should not constitute a substantial modification. (66)  In line with the commonly established notion of substantial modification for products regulated by Union harmonisation legislation, it is appropriate that an high-risk AI system undergoes a new conformity assessment whenever an unplanned change occurs which goes beyond controlled or predetermined changes by the provider including continuous learning and which may create a new unacceptable risk and significantly affect the compliance of the high-risk AI system with this Regulation or when the intended purpose of the system changes. In addition, as regards AI systems which continue to ‘learn’ after being placed on the market or put into service (i.e. they automatically adapt how functions are carried out), it is necessary to provide rules establishing that changes to the algorithm and its performance that have been pre-determined by the provider and assessed at the moment of the conformity assessment should not constitute a substantial modification. The same should apply to updates of the AI system for security reasons in general and to protect against evolving threats of manipulation of the system, provided that they do not amount to a substantial modification Amendment 113 Proposal for a regulation Recital 67 (67)  High-risk AI systems should bear the CE marking to indicate their conformity with this Regulation so that they can move freely within the internal market. Member States should not create unjustified obstacles to the placing on the market or putting into service of high-risk AI systems that comply with the requirements laid down in this Regulation and bear the CE marking. (67)  High-risk AI systems should bear the CE marking to indicate their conformity with this Regulation so that they can move freely within the internal market. For physical high-risk AI systems, a physical CE marking should be affixed, and may be complemented by a digital CE marking. For digital only high-risk AI systems, a digital CE marking should be used. Member States should not create unjustified obstacles to the placing on the market or putting into service of high-risk AI systems that comply with the requirements laid down in this Regulation and bear the CE marking. Amendment 114 Proposal for a regulation Recital 68 (68)  Under certain conditions, rapid availability of innovative technologies may be crucial for health and safety of persons and for society as a whole. It is thus appropriate that under exceptional reasons of public security or protection of life and health of natural persons and the protection of industrial and commercial property, Member States could authorise the placing on the market or putting into service of AI systems which have not undergone a conformity assessment. (68)  Under certain conditions, rapid availability of innovative technologies may be crucial for health and safety of persons, the environment and climate change and for society as a whole. It is thus appropriate that under exceptional reasons of protection of life and health of natural persons, environmental protection and the protection of critical infrastructure, Member States could authorise the placing on the market or putting into service of AI systems which have not undergone a conformity assessment. Amendment 115 Proposal for a regulation Recital 69 (69)  In order to facilitate the work of the Commission and the Member States in the artificial intelligence field as well as to increase the transparency towards the public, providers of high-risk AI systems other than those related to products falling within the scope of relevant existing Union harmonisation legislation, should be required to register their high-risk AI system in a EU database, to be established and managed by the Commission. The Commission should be the controller of that database, in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council55 . In order to ensure the full functionality of the database, when deployed, the procedure for setting the database should include the elaboration of functional specifications by the Commission and an independent audit report. (69)  In order to facilitate the work of the Commission and the Member States in the artificial intelligence field as well as to increase the transparency towards the public, providers of high-risk AI systems other than those related to products falling within the scope of relevant existing Union harmonisation legislation, should be required to register their high-risk AI system and foundation models in a EU database, to be established and managed by the Commission. This database should be freely and publicly accessible, easily understandable and machine-readable. The database should also be user-friendly and easily navigable, with search functionalities at minimum allowing the general public to search the database for specific high-risk systems, locations, categories of risk under Annex IV and keywords. Deployers who are public authorities or Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies or deployers acting on their behalf and deployers who are undertakings designated as a gatekeeper under Regulation (EU)2022/1925 should also register in the EU database before putting into service or using a high-risk AI system for the first time and following each substantial modification. Other deployers should be entitled to do so voluntarily. Any substantial modification of high-risk AI systems shall also be registered in the EU database. The Commission should be the controller of that database, in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council55. In order to ensure the full functionality of the database, when deployed, the procedure for setting the database should include the elaboration of functional specifications by the Commission and an independent audit report. The Commission should take into account cybersecurity and hazard-related risks when carrying out its tasks as data controller on the EU database. In order to maximise the availability and use of the database by the public, the database, including the information made available through it, should comply with requirements under the Directive 2019/882. __________________ __________________ 55 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1). 55 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1). Amendment 116 Proposal for a regulation Recital 71 (71)  Artificial intelligence is a rapidly developing family of technologies that requires novel forms of regulatory oversight and a safe space for experimentation, while ensuring responsible innovation and integration of appropriate safeguards and risk mitigation measures. To ensure a legal framework that is innovation-friendly, future-proof and resilient to disruption, national competent authorities from one or more Member States should be encouraged to establish artificial intelligence regulatory sandboxes to facilitate the development and testing of innovative AI systems under strict regulatory oversight before these systems are placed on the market or otherwise put into service. (71)  Artificial intelligence is a rapidly developing family of technologies that requires regulatory oversight and a safe and controlled space for experimentation, while ensuring responsible innovation and integration of appropriate safeguards and risk mitigation measures. To ensure a legal framework that promotes innovation, is future-proof, and resilient to disruption, Member States should establish at least one artificial intelligence regulatory sandbox to facilitate the development and testing of innovative AI systems under strict regulatory oversight before these systems are placed on the market or otherwise put into service. It is indeed desirable for the establishment of regulatory sandboxes, whose establishment is currently left at the discretion of Member States, as a next step to be made mandatory with established criteria. That mandatory sandbox could also be established jointly with one or several other Member States, as long as that sandbox would cover the respective national level of the involved Member States. Additional sandboxes may also be established at different levels, including cross Member States, in order to facilitate cross-border cooperation and synergies. With the exception of the mandatory sandbox at national level, Member States should also be able to establish virtual or hybrid sandboxes. All regulatory sandboxes should be able to accommodate both physical and virtual products. Establishing authorities should also ensure that the regulatory sandboxes have the adequate financial and human resources for their functioning. Amendment 117 Proposal for a regulation Recital 72 (72)  The objectives of the regulatory sandboxes should be to foster AI innovation by establishing a controlled experimentation and testing environment in the development and pre-marketing phase with a view to ensuring compliance of the innovative AI systems with this Regulation and other relevant Union and Member States legislation; to enhance legal certainty for innovators and the competent authorities’ oversight and understanding of the opportunities, emerging risks and the impacts of AI use, and to accelerate access to markets, including by removing barriers for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and start-ups. To ensure uniform implementation across the Union and economies of scale, it is appropriate to establish common rules for the regulatory sandboxes’ implementation and a framework for cooperation between the relevant authorities involved in the supervision of the sandboxes. This Regulation should provide the legal basis for the use of personal data collected for other purposes for developing certain AI systems in the public interest within the AI regulatory sandbox, in line with Article 6(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, and Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, and without prejudice to Article 4(2) of Directive (EU) 2016/680. Participants in the sandbox should ensure appropriate safeguards and cooperate with the competent authorities, including by following their guidance and acting expeditiously and in good faith to mitigate any high-risks to safety and fundamental rights that may arise during the development and experimentation in the sandbox. The conduct of the participants in the sandbox should be taken into account when competent authorities decide whether to impose an administrative fine under Article 83(2) of Regulation 2016/679 and Article 57 of Directive 2016/680. (72)  The objectives of the regulatory sandboxes should be: for the establishing authorities to increase their understanding of technical developments, improve supervisory methods and provide guidance to AI systems developers and providers to achieve regulatory compliance with this Regulation or where relevant, other applicable Union and Member States legislation, as well as with the Charter of Fundamental Rights ; for the prospective providers to allow and facilitate the testing and development of innovative solutions related to AI systems in the pre-marketing phase to enhance legal certainty, to allow for more regulatory learning by establishing authorities in a controlled environment to develop better guidance and to identify possible future improvements of the legal framework through the ordinary legislative procedure. Any significant risks identified during the development and testing of such AI systems should result in immediate mitigation and, failing that, in the suspension of the development and testing process until such mitigation takes place. To ensure uniform implementation across the Union and economies of scale, it is appropriate to establish common rules for the regulatory sandboxes’ implementation and a framework for cooperation between the relevant authorities involved in the supervision of the sandboxes. Member States should ensure that regulatory sandboxes are widely available throughout the Union, while the participation should remain voluntary. It is especially important to ensure that SMEs and startups can easily access these sandboxes, are actively involved and participate in the development and testing of innovative AI systems, in order to be able to contribute with their knowhow and experience. Amendment 118 Proposal for a regulation Recital 72 a (new) (72a)  This Regulation should provide the legal basis for the use of personal data collected for other purposes for developing certain AI systems in the public interest within the AI regulatory sandbox only under specified conditions in line with Article 6(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, and Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, and without prejudice to Article 4(2) of Directive (EU) 2016/680. Prospective providers in the sandbox should ensure appropriate safeguards and cooperate with the competent authorities, including by following their guidance and acting expeditiously and in good faith to mitigate any high-risks to safety, health and the environment and fundamental rights that may arise during the development and experimentation in the sandbox. The conduct of the prospective providers in the sandbox should be taken into account when competent authorities decide over the temporary or permanent suspension of their participation in the sandbox whether to impose an administrative fine under Article 83(2) of Regulation 2016/679 and Article 57 of Directive 2016/680. Amendment 119 Proposal for a regulation Recital 72 b (new) (72b)  To ensure that Artificial Intelligence leads to socially and environmentally beneficial outcomes, Member States should support and promote research and development of AI in support of socially and environmentally beneficial outcomes by allocating sufficient resources, including public and Union funding, and giving priority access to regulatory sandboxes to projects led by civil society. Such projects should be based on the principle of interdisciplinary cooperation between AI developers, experts on inequality and non-discrimination, accessibility, consumer, environmental, and digital rights, as well as academics Amendment 120 Proposal for a regulation Recital 73 (73)  In order to promote and protect innovation, it is important that the interests of small-scale providers and users of AI systems are taken into particular account. To this objective, Member States should develop initiatives, which are targeted at those operators, including on awareness raising and information communication. Moreover, the specific interests and needs of small-scale providers shall be taken into account when Notified Bodies set conformity assessment fees. Translation costs related to mandatory documentation and communication with authorities may constitute a significant cost for providers and other operators, notably those of a smaller scale. Member States should possibly ensure that one of the languages determined and accepted by them for relevant providers’ documentation and for communication with operators is one which is broadly understood by the largest possible number of cross-border users. (73)  In order to promote and protect innovation, it is important that the interests of small-scale providers and users of AI systems are taken into particular account. To this objective, Member States should develop initiatives, which are targeted at those operators, including on AI literacy, awareness raising and information communication. Member States shall utilise existing channels and where appropriate, establish new dedicated channels for communication with SMEs, start-ups, user and other innovators to provide guidance and respond to queries about the implementation of this Regulation. Such existing channels could include but are not limited to ENISA’s Computer Security Incident Response Teams, National Data Protection Agencies, the AI-on demand platform, the European Digital Innovation Hubs and other relevant instruments funded by EU programmes as well as the Testing and Experimentation Facilities established by the Commission and the Member States at national or Union level. Where appropriate, these channels shall work together to create synergies and ensure homogeneity in their guidance to start-ups, SMEs and users. Moreover, the specific interests and needs of small-scale providers shall be taken into account when Notified Bodies set conformity assessment fees. The Commission shall regularly assess the certification and compliance costs for SMEs and start-ups, including through transparent consultations with SMEs, start-ups and users and shall work with Member States to lower such costs. For example, translation costs related to mandatory documentation and communication with authorities may constitute a significant cost for providers and other operators, notably those of a smaller scale. Member States should possibly ensure that one of the languages determined and accepted by them for relevant providers’ documentation and for communication with operators is one which is broadly understood by the largest possible number of cross-border users. Medium-sized enterprises which recently changed from the small to medium-size category within the meaning of the Annex to Recommendation 2003/361/EC (Article 16) shall have access to these initiatives and guidance for a period of time deemed appropriate by the Member States, as these new medium-sized enterprises may sometimes lack the legal resources and training necessary to ensure proper understanding and compliance with provisions. Amendment 121 Proposal for a regulation Recital 74 (74)  In order to minimise the risks to implementation resulting from lack of knowledge and expertise in the market as well as to facilitate compliance of providers and notified bodies with their obligations under this Regulation, the AI-on demand platform, the European Digital Innovation Hubs and the Testing and Experimentation Facilities established by the Commission and the Member States at national or EU level should possibly contribute to the implementation of this Regulation. Within their respective mission and fields of competence, they may provide in particular technical and scientific support to providers and notified bodies. (74)  In order to minimise the risks to implementation resulting from lack of knowledge and expertise in the market as well as to facilitate compliance of providers and notified bodies with their obligations under this Regulation, the AI-on demand platform, the European Digital Innovation Hubs and the Testing and Experimentation Facilities established by the Commission and the Member States at national or EU level should contribute to the implementation of this Regulation. Within their respective mission and fields of competence, they may provide in particular technical and scientific support to providers and notified bodies. Amendment 122 Proposal for a regulation Recital 76 (76)  In order to facilitate a smooth, effective and harmonised implementation of this Regulation a European Artificial Intelligence Board should be established. The Board should be responsible for a number of advisory tasks, including issuing opinions, recommendations, advice or guidance on matters related to the implementation of this Regulation, including on technical specifications or existing standards regarding the requirements established in this Regulation and providing advice to and assisting the Commission on specific questions related to artificial intelligence. (76)  In order to avoid fragmentation, to ensure the optimal functioning of the Single market, to ensure effective and harmonised implementation of this Regulation, to achieve a high level of trustworthiness and of protection of health and safety, fundamental rights, the environment, democracy and the rule of law across the Union with regards to AI systems, to actively support national supervisory authorities, Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies in matters pertaining to this Regulation, and to increase the uptake of artificial intelligence throughout the Union, an European Union Artificial Intelligence Office should be established. The AI Office should have legal personality, should act in full independence, should be responsible for a number of advisory and coordination tasks, including issuing opinions, recommendations, advice or guidance on matters related to the implementation of this Regulation and should be adequately funded and staffed. Member States should provide the strategic direction and control of the AI Office through the management board of the AI Office, alongside the Commission, the EDPS, the FRA, and ENISA. An executive director should be responsible for managing the activities of the secretariat of the AI office and for representing the AI office. Stakeholders should formally participate in the work of the AI Office through an advisory forum that should ensure varied and balanced stakeholder representation and should advise the AI Office on matters pertaining to this Regulation. In case the establishment of the AI Office prove not to be sufficient to ensure a fully consistent application of this Regulation at Union level as well as efficient cross-border enforcement measures, the creation of an AI agency should be considered. Amendment 123 Proposal for a regulation Recital 77 (77)  Member States hold a key role in the application and enforcement of this Regulation. In this respect, each Member State should designate one or more national competent authorities for the purpose of supervising the application and implementation of this Regulation. In order to increase organisation efficiency on the side of Member States and to set an official point of contact vis-à-vis the public and other counterparts at Member State and Union levels, in each Member State one national authority should be designated as national supervisory authority. (77)  Each Member State should designate a national supervisory authority for the purpose of supervising the application and implementation of this Regulation. It should also represent its Member State at the management board of the AI Office. In order to increase organisation efficiency on the side of Member States and to set an official point of contact vis-à-vis the public and other counterparts at Member State and Union levels. Each national supervisory authority should act with complete independence in performing its tasks and exercising its powers in accordance with this Regulation. Amendment 124 Proposal for a regulation Recital 77 a (new) (77a)  The national supervisory authorities should monitor the application of the provisions pursuant to this Regulation and contribute to its consistent application throughout the Union. For that purpose, the national supervisory authorities should cooperate with each other, with the relevant national competent authorities, the Commission, and with the AI Office. Amendment 125 Proposal for a regulation Recital 77 b (new) (77b)  The member or the staff of each national supervisory authority should, in accordance with Union or national law, be subject to a duty of professional secrecy both during and after their term of office, with regard to any confidential information which has come to their knowledge in the course of the performance of their tasks or exercise of their powers. During their term of office, that duty of professional secrecy should in particular apply to trade secrets and to reporting by natural persons of infringements of this Regulation Amendment 126 Proposal for a regulation Recital 78 (78)  In order to ensure that providers of high-risk AI systems can take into account the experience on the use of high-risk AI systems for improving their systems and the design and development process or can take any possible corrective action in a timely manner, all providers should have a post-market monitoring system in place. This system is also key to ensure that the possible risks emerging from AI systems which continue to ‘learn’ after being placed on the market or put into service can be more efficiently and timely addressed. In this context, providers should also be required to have a system in place to report to the relevant authorities any serious incidents or any breaches to national and Union law protecting fundamental rights resulting from the use of their AI systems. (78)  In order to ensure that providers of high-risk AI systems can take into account the experience on the use of high-risk AI systems for improving their systems and the design and development process or can take any possible corrective action in a timely manner, all providers should have a post-market monitoring system in place. This system is also key to ensure that the possible risks emerging from AI systems which continue to ‘learn’ or evolve after being placed on the market or put into service can be more efficiently and timely addressed. In this context, providers should also be required to have a system in place to report to the relevant authorities any serious incidents or any breaches to national and Union law, including those protecting fundamental rights and consumer rights resulting from the use of their AI systems and take appropriate corrective actions. Deployers should also report to the relevant authorities, any serious incidents or breaches to national and Union law resulting from the use of their AI system when they become aware of such serious incidents or breaches. Amendment 127 Proposal for a regulation Recital 79 (79)  In order to ensure an appropriate and effective enforcement of the requirements and obligations set out by this Regulation, which is Union harmonisation legislation, the system of market surveillance and compliance of products established by Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 should apply in its entirety. Where necessary for their mandate, national public authorities or bodies, which supervise the application of Union law protecting fundamental rights, including equality bodies, should also have access to any documentation created under this Regulation. (79)  In order to ensure an appropriate and effective enforcement of the requirements and obligations set out by this Regulation, which is Union harmonisation legislation, the system of market surveillance and compliance of products established by Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 should apply in its entirety. For the purpose of this Regulation, national supervisory authorities should act as market surveillance authorities for AI systems covered by this Regulation except for AI systems covered by Annex II of this Regulation. For AI systems covered by legal acts listed in the Annex II, the competent authorites under those legal acts should remain the lead authority. National supervisory authorities and competent authorities in the legal acts listed in Annex II should work together whenever necessary. When appropriate, the competent authorities in the legal acts listed in Annex II should send competent staff to the national supervisory authority in order to assist in the performance of its tasks. For the purpose of this Regulation, national supervisory authorities should have the same powers and obligations as market surveillance authorities under Regulation (EU) 2019/1020. Where necessary for their mandate, national public authorities or bodies, which supervise the application of Union law protecting fundamental rights, including equality bodies, should also have access to any documentation created under this Regulation. After having exhausted all other reasonable ways to assess/verify the conformity and upon a reasoned request, the national supervisory authority should be granted access to the training, validation and testing datasets, the trained and training model of the high-risk AI system, including its relevant model parameters and their execution /run environment. In cases of simpler software systems falling under this Regulation that are not based on trained models, and where all other ways to verify conformity have been exhausted, the national supervisory authority may exceptionally have access to the source code, upon a reasoned request. Where the national supervisory authority has been granted access to the training, validation and testing datasets in accordance with this Regulation, such access should be achieved through appropriate technical means and tools, including on site access and in exceptional circumstances, remote access. The national supervisory authority should treat any information, including source code, software, and data as applicable, obtained as confidential information and respect relevant Union law on the protection of intellectual property and trade secrets. The national supervisory authority should delete any information obtained upon the completion of the investigation. Amendment 128 Proposal for a regulation Recital 80 (80)  Union legislation on financial services includes internal governance and risk management rules and requirements which are applicable to regulated financial institutions in the course of provision of those services, including when they make use of AI systems. In order to ensure coherent application and enforcement of the obligations under this Regulation and relevant rules and requirements of the Union financial services legislation, the authorities responsible for the supervision and enforcement of the financial services legislation, including where applicable the European Central Bank, should be designated as competent authorities for the purpose of supervising the implementation of this Regulation, including for market surveillance activities, as regards AI systems provided or used by regulated and supervised financial institutions. To further enhance the consistency between this Regulation and the rules applicable to credit institutions regulated under Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council56 , it is also appropriate to integrate the conformity assessment procedure and some of the providers’ procedural obligations in relation to risk management, post marketing monitoring and documentation into the existing obligations and procedures under Directive 2013/36/EU. In order to avoid overlaps, limited derogations should also be envisaged in relation to the quality management system of providers and the monitoring obligation placed on users of high-risk AI systems to the extent that these apply to credit institutions regulated by Directive 2013/36/EU. (80)  Union law on financial services includes internal governance and risk management rules and requirements which are applicable to regulated financial institutions in the course of provision of those services, including when they make use of AI systems. In order to ensure coherent application and enforcement of the obligations under this Regulation and relevant rules and requirements of the Union financial services law, the competent authorities responsible for the supervision and enforcement of the financial services law, including where applicable the European Central Bank, should be designated as competent authorities for the purpose of supervising the implementation of this Regulation, including for market surveillance activities, as regards AI systems provided or used by regulated and supervised financial institutions. To further enhance the consistency between this Regulation and the rules applicable to credit institutions regulated under Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council56 , it is also appropriate to integrate the conformity assessment procedure and some of the providers’ procedural obligations in relation to risk management, post marketing monitoring and documentation into the existing obligations and procedures under Directive 2013/36/EU. In order to avoid overlaps, limited derogations should also be envisaged in relation to the quality management system of providers and the monitoring obligation placed on deployers of high-risk AI systems to the extent that these apply to credit institutions regulated by Directive 2013/36/EU. __________________ __________________ 56 Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC (OJ L 176, 27.6.2013, p. 338). 56 Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC (OJ L 176, 27.6.2013, p. 338). Amendment 129 Proposal for a regulation Recital 80 a (new) (80a)  Given the objectives of this Regulation, namely to ensure an equivalent level of protection of health, safety and fundamental rights of natural persons, to ensure the protection of the rule of law and democracy, and taking into account that the mitigation of the risks of AI system against such rights may not be sufficiently achieved at national level or may be subject to diverging interpretation which could ultimately lead to an uneven level of protection of natural persons and create market fragmentation, the national supervisory authorities should be empowered to conduct joint investigations or rely on the union safeguard procedure provided for in this Regulation for effective enforcement. Joint investigations should be initiated where the national supervisory authority have sufficient reasons to believe that an infringement of this Regulation amount to a widespread infringement or a widespread infringement with a Union dimension, or where the AI system or foundation model presents a risk which affects or is likely to affect at least 45 million individuals in more than one Member State. Amendment 130 Proposal for a regulation Recital 82 (82)  It is important that AI systems related to products that are not high-risk in accordance with this Regulation and thus are not required to comply with the requirements set out herein are nevertheless safe when placed on the market or put into service. To contribute to this objective, the Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council57 would apply as a safety net. (82)  It is important that AI systems related to products that are not high-risk in accordance with this Regulation and thus are not required to comply with the requirements set out for high-risk AI systems are nevertheless safe when placed on the market or put into service. To contribute to this objective, the Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council57 would apply as a safety net. __________________ __________________ 57 Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety (OJ L 11, 15.1.2002, p. 4). 57 Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety (OJ L 11, 15.1.2002, p. 4). Amendment 131 Proposal for a regulation Recital 83 (83)  In order to ensure trustful and constructive cooperation of competent authorities on Union and national level, all parties involved in the application of this Regulation should respect the confidentiality of information and data obtained in carrying out their tasks. (83)  In order to ensure trustful and constructive cooperation of competent authorities on Union and national level, all parties involved in the application of this Regulation should aim for transparency and openness while respecting the confidentiality of information and data obtained in carrying out their tasks by putting in place technical and organisational measures to protect the security and confidentiality of the information obtained carrying out their activities including for intellectual property rights and public and national security interests. Where the activities of the Commission, national competent authorities and notified bodies pursuant to this Regulation results in a breach of intellectual property rights, Member States should provide for adequate measures and remedies to ensure the enforcement of intellectual property rights in application of Directive 2004/48/EC. Amendment 132 Proposal for a regulation Recital 84 (84)  Member States should take all necessary measures to ensure that the provisions of this Regulation are implemented, including by laying down effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties for their infringement. For certain specific infringements, Member States should take into account the margins and criteria set out in this Regulation. The European Data Protection Supervisor should have the power to impose fines on Union institutions, agencies and bodies falling within the scope of this Regulation. (84)  Compliance with this Regulation should be enforceable by means of the imposition of fines by the national supervisory authority when carrying out proceedings under the procedure laid down in this Regulation. Member States should take all necessary measures to ensure that the provisions of this Regulation are implemented, including by laying down effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties for their infringement. In order to strengthen and harmonise administrative penalties for infringement of this Regulation, the upper limits for setting the administrative fines for certain specific infringements should be laid down;. When assessing the amount of the fines, national competent authorities should, in each individual case, take into account all relevant circumstances of the specific situation, with due regard in particular to the nature, gravity and duration of the infringement and of its consequences and to the provider’s size, in particular if the provider is a SME or a start-up. The European Data Protection Supervisor should have the power to impose fines on Union institutions, agencies and bodies falling within the scope of this Regulation. The penalties and litigation costs under this Regulation should not be subject to contractual clauses or any other arrangements. Amendment 133 Proposal for a regulation Recital 84 a (new) (84a)  As the rights and freedoms of natural and legal persons and groups of natural persons can be seriously undermined by AI systems, it is essential that natural and legal persons or groups of natural persons have meaningful access to reporting and redress mechanisms and to be entitled to access proportionate and effective remedies. They should be able to report infringments of this Regulation to their national supervisory authority and have the right to lodge a complaint against the providers or deployers of AI systems. Where applicable, deployers should provide internal complaints mechanisms to be used by natural and legal persons or groups of natural persons. Without prejudice to any other administrative or non-judicial remedy, natural and legal persons and groups of natural persons should also have the right to an effective judicial remedy with regard to a legally binding decision of a national supervisory authority concerning them or, where the national supervisory authority does not handle a complaint, does not inform the complainant of the progress or preliminary outcome of the complaint lodged or does not comply with its obligation to reach a final decision, with regard to the complaint. Amendment 134 Proposal for a regulation Recital 84 b (new) (84b)  Affected persons should always be informed that they are subject to the use of a high-risk AI system, when deployers use a high-risk AI system to assist in decision-making or make decisions related to natural persons. This information can provide a basis for affected persons to exercise their right to an explanation under this Regulation.When deployers provide an explanation to affected persons under this Regulation, they should take into account the level of expertise and knowledge of the average consumer or individual. Amendment 135 Proposal for a regulation Recital 84 c (new) (84c)  Union law on the protection of whistleblowers (Directive (EU) 2019/1937) has full application to academics, designers, developers, project contributors, auditors, product managers, engineers and economic operators acquiring information on breaches of Union law by a provider of AI system or its AI system. Amendment 136 Proposal for a regulation Recital 85 (85)  In order to ensure that the regulatory framework can be adapted where necessary, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU should be delegated to the Commission to amend the techniques and approaches referred to in Annex I to define AI systems, the Union harmonisation legislation listed in Annex II, the high-risk AI systems listed in Annex III, the provisions regarding technical documentation listed in Annex IV, the content of the EU declaration of conformity in Annex V, the provisions regarding the conformity assessment procedures in Annex VI and VII and the provisions establishing the high-risk AI systems to which the conformity assessment procedure based on assessment of the quality management system and assessment of the technical documentation should apply. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level, and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making58 . In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and the Council receive all documents at the same time as Member States’ experts, and their experts systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts. (85)  In order to ensure that the regulatory framework can be adapted where necessary, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU should be delegated to the Commission to amend the Union harmonisation legislation listed in Annex II, the high-risk AI systems listed in Annex III, the provisions regarding technical documentation listed in Annex IV, the content of the EU declaration of conformity in Annex V, the provisions regarding the conformity assessment procedures in Annex VI and VII and the provisions establishing the high-risk AI systems to which the conformity assessment procedure based on assessment of the quality management system and assessment of the technical documentation should apply. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level, and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making58. These consultations should involve the participation of a balanced selection of stakeholders, including consumer organisations, civil society, associations representing affected persons, businesses representatives from different sectors and sizes, as well as researchers and scientists. In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and the Council receive all documents at the same time as Member States’ experts, and their experts systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts. __________________ __________________ 58 OJ L 123, 12.5.2016, p. 1. 58 OJ L 123, 12.5.2016, p. 1. Amendment 137 Proposal for a regulation Recital 85 a (new) (85a)  Given the rapid technological developments and the required technical expertise in conducting the assessment of high-risk AI systems, the Commission should regularly review the implementation of this Regulation, in particular the prohibited AI systems, the transparency obligations and the list of high-risk areas and use cases, at least every year, while consulting the AI office and the relevant stakeholders. Amendment 138 Proposal for a regulation Recital 87 a (new) (87a)  As reliable information on the resource and energy use, waste production and other environmental impact of AI systems and related ICT technology, including software, hardware and in particular data centres, is limited, the Commission should introduce of an adequate methodology to measure the environmental impact and effectiveness of this Regulation in light of the Union environmental and climate objectives. Amendment 139 Proposal for a regulation Recital 89 (89)  The European Data Protection Supervisor and the European Data Protection Board were consulted in accordance with Article 42(2) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 and delivered an opinion on […]”. (89)  The European Data Protection Supervisor and the European Data Protection Board were consulted in accordance with Article 42(2) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 and delivered an opinion on 18 June 2021. Amendment 140 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 (new) 1.  The purpose of this Regulation is to promote the uptake of human-centric and trustworthy artificial intelligence and to ensure a high level of protection of health, safety, fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law, and the environment from harmful effects of artificial intelligence systems in the Union while supporting innovation; Amendment 141 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point d (d)  harmonised transparency rules for AI systems intended to interact with natural persons, emotion recognition systems and biometric categorisation systems, and AI systems used to generate or manipulate image, audio or video content; (d)  harmonised transparency rules for certain AI systems; Amendment 142 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point e (e)  rules on market monitoring and surveillance. (e)  rules on market monitoring, market surveillance governance and enforcement; Amendment 143 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point e a (new) (ea)  measures to support innovation, with a particular focus on SMEs and start-ups, including on setting up regulatory sandboxes and targeted measures to reduce the regulatory burden on SMEs’s and start-ups; Amendment 144 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point e b (new) (eb)  rules for the establishment and functioning of the Union’s Artificial Intelligence Office (AI Office). Amendment 145 Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b (b)  users of AI systems located within the Union; (b)  deployers of AI systems that have their place of establishment or who are located within the Union; Amendment 146 Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point c (c)  providers and users of AI systems that are located in a third country, where the output produced by the system is used in the Union; (c)  providers and deployers of AI systems that have their place of establishment or who are located in a third country, where either Member State law applies by virtue of a public international law or the output produced by the system is intended to be used in the Union; Amendment 147 Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new) (ca)  providers placing on the market or putting into service AI systems referred to in Article 5 outside the Union where the provider or distributor of such systems is located within the Union; Amendment 148 Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point c b (new) (cb)  importers and distributors of AI systems as well as authorised representatives of providers of AI systems, where such importers, distributors or authorised representatives have their establishment or are located in the Union; Amendment 149 Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point c c (new) (cc)  affected persons as defined in Article 3(8a) that are located in the Union and whose health, safety or fundamental rights are adversely impacted by the use of an AI system that is placed on the market or put into service within the Union. Amendment 150 Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 2 – introductory part 2.  For high-risk AI systems that are safety components of products or systems, or which are themselves products or systems, falling within the scope of the following acts, only Article 84 of this Regulation shall apply: 2.  For high-risk AI systems that are safety components of products or systems, or which are themselves products or systems and that fall, within the scope of harmonisation legislation listed in Annex II - Section B, only Article 84 of this Regulation shall apply; Amendment 151 Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point a (a)  Regulation (EC) 300/2008; deleted Amendment 152 Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point b (b)  Regulation (EU) No 167/2013; deleted Amendment 153 Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point c (c)  Regulation (EU) No 168/2013; deleted Amendment 154 Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point d (d)  Directive 2014/90/EU; deleted Amendment 155 Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point e (e)  Directive (EU) 2016/797; deleted Amendment 156 Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point f (f)  Regulation (EU) 2018/858; deleted Amendment 157 Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point g (g)  Regulation (EU) 2018/1139; deleted Amendment 158 Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point h (h)  Regulation (EU) 2019/2144. deleted Amendment 159 Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 4 4.  This Regulation shall not apply to public authorities in a third country nor to international organisations falling within the scope of this Regulation pursuant to paragraph 1, where those authorities or organisations use AI systems in the framework of international agreements for law enforcement and judicial cooperation with the Union or with one or more Member States. 4.  This Regulation shall not apply to public authorities in a third country nor to international organisations falling within the scope of this Regulation pursuant to paragraph 1, where those authorities or organisations use AI systems in the framework of international cooperation or agreements for law enforcement and judicial cooperation with the Union or with one or more Member States and are subject of a decision of the Commission adopted in accordance with Article 36 of Directive (EU)2016/680 or Article 45 of Regulation 2016/679 (adequacy decision) or are part of an international agreement concluded between the Union and that third country or international organisation pursuant to Article 218 TFUE providing adequate safeguards with respect to the protection of privacy and fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals; Amendment 160 Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 5 a (new) 5a.  Union law on the protection of personal data, privacy and the confidentiality of communications applies to personal data processes in connection with the rights and obligations laid down in this Regulation. This Regulation shall not affect Regulations (EU) 2016/679 and (EU) 2018/1725 and Directives 2002/58/EC and (EU) 2016/680, without prejudice to arrangements provided for in Article 10(5) and Article 54 of this Regulation.; Amendment 161 Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 5 b (new) 5b.  This Regulation is without prejudice to the rules laid down by other Union legal acts related to consumer protection and product safety; Amendment 162 Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 5 c (new) 5c.  This regulation shall not preclude Member States or the Union from maintaining or introducing laws, regulations or administrative provisions which are more favourable to workers in terms of protecting their rights in respect of the use of AI systems by employers, or to encourage or allow the application of collective agreements which are more favourable to workers. Amendment 163 Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 5 d (new) 5d.  This Regulation shall not apply to research, testing and development activities regarding an AI system prior to this system being placed on the market or put into service, provided that these activities are conducted respecting fundamental rights and the applicable Union law. The testing in real world conditions shall not be covered by this exemption.The Commission is empowered to may adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 73 that clarify the application of this paragraph to specify this exemption to prevent its existing and potential abuse. The AI Office shall provide guidance on the governance of research and development pursuant to Article 56, also aiming to coordinate its application by the national supervisory authorities; Amendment 164 Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 5 e (new) 5e.  This Regulation shall not apply to AI components provided under free and open-source licences except to the extent they are placed on the market or put into service by a provider as part of a high-risk AI system or of an AI system that falls under Title II or IV. This exemption shall not apply to foundation models as defined in Art 3. Amendment 165 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 1 (1)  ‘artificial intelligence system’ (AI system) means software that is developed with one or more of the techniques and approaches listed in Annex I and can, for a given set of human-defined objectives, generate outputs such as content, predictions, recommendations, or decisions influencing the environments they interact with; (1)  ‘‘artificial intelligence system’ (AI system) means a machine-based system that is designed to operate with varying levels of autonomy and that can, for explicit or implicit objectives, generate outputs such as predictions, recommendations, or decisions, that influence physical or virtual environments; Amendment 166 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new) (1a)  ‘risk’ means the combination of the probability of an occurrence of harm and the severity of that harm; Amendment 167 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 1 b (new) (1b)  ‘significant risk’ means a risk that is significant as a result of the combination of its severity, intensity, probability of occurrence, and duration of its effects, and its the ability to affect an individual, a plurality of persons or to affect a particular group of persons; Amendment 168 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 1 c (new) (1c)  ‘foundation model’ means an AI system model that is trained on broad data at scale, is designed for generality of output, and can be adapted to a wide range of distinctive tasks; Amendment 169 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 1 d (new) (1d)  ‘general purpose AI system’ means an AI system that can be used in and adapted to a wide range of applications for which it was not intentionally and specifically designed; Amendment 170 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 1 e (new) (1e)  ‘large training runs’ means the production process of a powerful AI model that require computing resources above a very high threshold; Amendment 171 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 (3)  ‘small-scale provider’ means a provider that is a micro or small enterprise within the meaning of Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC61 ; deleted __________________ 61 Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ L 124, 20.5.2003, p. 36). Amendment 172 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 4 (4)  ‘user’ means any natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body using an AI system under its authority, except where the AI system is used in the course of a personal non-professional activity; (4)  ‘deployer means any natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body using an AI system under its authority except where the AI system is used in the course of a personal non-professional activity; Amendment 173 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 8 (8)  ‘operator’ means the provider, the user, the authorised representative, the importer and the distributor; (8)  ‘operator’ means the provider, the deployer, the authorised representative, the importer and the distributor; Amendment 174 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 8 a (new) (8a)  ‘affected person’ means any natural person or group of persons who are subject to or otherwise affected by an AI system; Amendment 175 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 11 (11)  ‘putting into service’ means the supply of an AI system for first use directly to the user or for own use on the Union market for its intended purpose; (11)  ‘putting into service’ means the supply of an AI system for first use directly to the deployer or for own use on the Union market for its intended purpose; Amendment 176 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 13 (13)  ‘reasonably foreseeable misuse’ means the use of an AI system in a way that is not in accordance with its intended purpose, but which may result from reasonably foreseeable human behaviour or interaction with other systems; (13)  ‘reasonably foreseeable misuse’ means the use of an AI system in a way that is not in accordance with its intended purpose as indicated in instructions for use established by the provider, but which may result from reasonably foreseeable human behaviour or interaction with other systems, including other AI systems; Amendment 177 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 14 (14)  ‘safety component of a product or system’ means a component of a product or of a system which fulfils a safety function for that product or system or the failure or malfunctioning of which endangers the health and safety of persons or property; (14)  ‘safety component of a product or system’ means, in line with Union harmonisation law listed in Annex II, a component of a product or of a system which fulfils a safety function for that product or system, or the failure or malfunctioning of which endangers the health and safety of persons; Amendment 178 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 15 (15)  ‘instructions for use’ means the information provided by the provider to inform the user of in particular an AI system’s intended purpose and proper use, inclusive of the specific geographical, behavioural or functional setting within which the high-risk AI system is intended to be used; (15)  ‘instructions for use’ means the information provided by the provider to inform the deployer of in particular an AI system’s intended purpose and proper use, as well as information on any precautions to be taken; inclusive of the specific geographical, behavioural or functional setting within which the high-risk AI system is intended to be used; Amendment 179 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 16 (16)  ‘recall of an AI system’ means any measure aimed at achieving the return to the provider of an AI system made available to users; (16)  ‘recall of an AI system’ means any measure aimed at achieving the return to the provider of an AI system that has been made available to deployers; Amendment 180 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 20 (20)  ‘conformity assessment’ means the process of verifying whether the requirements set out in Title III, Chapter 2 of this Regulation relating to an AI system have been fulfilled; (20)  ‘conformity assessment’ means the process of demonstrating whether the requirements set out in Title III, Chapter 2 of this Regulation relating to an AI system have been fulfilled; Amendment 181 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 22 (22)  ‘notified body’ means a conformity assessment body designated in accordance with this Regulation and other relevant Union harmonisation legislation; (22)  ‘notified body’ means a conformity assessment body notified in accordance with this Regulation and other relevant Union harmonisation legislation; Amendment 182 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 23 (23)  ‘substantial modification’ means a change to the AI system following its placing on the market or putting into service which affects the compliance of the AI system with the requirements set out in Title III, Chapter 2 of this Regulation or results in a modification to the intended purpose for which the AI system has been assessed; (23)  ‘substantial modification’ means a modification or a series of modifications of the AI system after its placing on the market or putting into service which is not foreseen or planned in the initial risk assessment by the provider and as a result of which the compliance of the AI system with the requirements set out in Title III, Chapter 2 of this Regulation is affected or results in a modification to the intended purpose for which the AI system has been assessed; Amendment 183 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 24 (24)  ‘CE marking of conformity’ (CE marking) means a marking by which a provider indicates that an AI system is in conformity with the requirements set out in Title III, Chapter 2 of this Regulation and other applicable Union legislation harmonising the conditions for the marketing of products (‘Union harmonisation legislation’) providing for its affixing; (24)  ‘CE marking of conformity’ (CE marking) means a physical or digital marking by which a provider indicates that an AI system or a product with an embedded AI system is in conformity with the requirements set out in Title III, Chapter 2 of this Regulation and other applicable Union legislation harmonising the conditions for the marketing of products (‘Union harmonisation legislation’) providing for its affixing; Amendment 184 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 29 (29)  ‘training data’ means data used for training an AI system through fitting its learnable parameters, including the weights of a neural network; (29)  ‘training data’ means data used for training an AI system through fitting its learnable parameters; Amendment 185 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 30 (30)  ‘validation data’ means data used for providing an evaluation of the trained AI system and for tuning its non-learnable parameters and its learning process, among other things, in order to prevent overfitting; whereas the validation dataset can be a separate dataset or part of the training dataset, either as a fixed or variable split; (30)  ‘validation data’ means data used for providing an evaluation of the trained AI system and for tuning its non-learnable parameters and its learning process, among other things, in order to prevent underfitting or overfitting; whereas the validation dataset is a separate dataset or part of the training dataset, either as a fixed or variable split; Amendment 186 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 33 (33)  ‘biometric data’ means personal data resulting from specific technical processing relating to the physical, physiological or behavioural characteristics of a natural person, which allow or confirm the unique identification of that natural person, such as facial images or dactyloscopic data; (33)  ‘biometric data’ means biometric data as defined in Article 4, point (14) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679; Amendment 187 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 33 a (new) (33a)  ‘biometric-based data’ means data resulting from specific technical processing relating to physical, physiological or behavioural signals of a natural person; Amendment 188 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 33 b (new) (33b)  ‘biometric identification’ means the automated recognition of physical, physiological, behavioural, and psychological human features for the purpose of establishing an individual’s identity by comparing biometric data of that individual to stored biometric data of individuals in a database (one-to-many identification); Amendment 189 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 33 c (new) (33c)  ‘biometric verification’ means the automated verification of the identity of natural persons by comparing biometric data of an individual to previously provided biometric data (one-to-one verification, including authentication); Amendment 190 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 33 d (new) (33d)  ‘special categories of personal data’ means the categories of personal data referred to in Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU)2016/679; Amendment 191 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 34 (34)  ‘emotion recognition system’ means an AI system for the purpose of identifying or inferring emotions or intentions of natural persons on the basis of their biometric data; (34)  ‘emotion recognition system’ means an AI system for the purpose of identifying or inferring emotions, thoughts, states of mind or intentions of individuals or groups on the basis of their biometric and biometric-based data; Amendment 192 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 35 (35)  ‘biometric categorisation system’ means an AI system for the purpose of assigning natural persons to specific categories, such as sex, age, hair colour, eye colour, tattoos, ethnic origin or sexual or political orientation, on the basis of their biometric data; (35)  ‘biometric categorisation means assigning natural persons to specific categories, or inferring their characteristics and attributes on the basis of their biometric or biometric-based data, or which can be inferred from such data; Amendment 193 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 36 (36)  ‘remote biometric identification system’ means an AI system for the purpose of identifying 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 of the user of the AI system whether the person will be present and can be identified ; (36)  ‘remote biometric identification system’ means an AI system for the purpose of identifying 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 of the deployer of the AI system whether the person will be present and can be identified, excluding verification systems; Amendment 194 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 37 (37)  ‘‘real-time’ remote biometric identification system’ means a remote biometric identification system whereby the capturing of biometric data, the comparison and the identification all occur without a significant delay. This comprises not only instant identification, but also limited short delays in order to avoid circumvention. (37)  ‘‘real-time’ remote biometric identification system’ means a remote biometric identification system whereby the capturing of biometric data, the comparison and the identification all occur without a significant delay. This comprises not only instant identification, but also limited delays in order to avoid circumvention; Amendment 195 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 39 (39)  ‘publicly accessible space’ means any physical place accessible to the public, regardless of whether certain conditions for access may apply; (39)  ‘publicly accessible space’ means any publicly or privately owned physical place accessible to the public, regardless of whether certain conditions for access may apply, and regardless of the potential capacity restrictions; Amendment 196 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 41 (41)  ‘law enforcement’ means activities carried out by law enforcement authorities for the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, including the safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to public security; (41)  ‘law enforcement’ means activities carried out by law enforcement authorities or on their behalf for the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, including the safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to public security; Amendment 197 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 42 (42)  ‘national supervisory authority’ means the authority to which a Member State assigns the responsibility for the implementation and application of this Regulation, for coordinating the activities entrusted to that Member State, for acting as the single contact point for the Commission, and for representing the Member State at the European Artificial Intelligence Board; (42)  ‘national supervisory authority’ means a public (AM 69) authority to which a Member State assigns the responsibility for the implementation and application of this Regulation, for coordinating the activities entrusted to that Member State, for acting as the single contact point for the Commission, and for representing the Member State in the management Board of the AI Office; Amendment 198 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 43 (43)  ‘national competent authority’ means the national supervisory authority, the notifying authority and the market surveillance authority; (43)  ‘national competent authority’ means any of the national authorities which are responsible for the enforcement of this Regulation; Amendment 199 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 – introductory part (44)  ‘serious incident’ means any incident that directly or indirectly leads, might have led or might lead to any of the following: (44)  ‘serious incident’ means any incident or malfunctioning of an AI system that directly or indirectly leads, might have led or might lead to any of the following: (a)  the death of a person or serious damage to a person’s health, to property or the environment, (a)  the death of a person or serious damage to a person’s health, (b)   a serious disruption of the management and operation of critical infrastructure. (b)   a serious disruption of the management and operation of critical infrastructure, (ba)  a breach of fundamental rights protected under Union law, (bb)  serious damage to property or the environment. Amendment 200 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 a (new) (44a)  'personal data' means personal data as defined in Article 4, point (1) of Regulation (EU)2016/679; Amendment 201 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 b (new) (44b)  ‘non-personal data’ means data other than personal data; Amendment 202 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 c (new) (44c)  ‘profiling’ means any form of automated processing of personal data as defined in point (4) of Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679; or in the case of law enforcement authorities – in point 4 of Article 3 of Directive (EU) 2016/680 or, in the case of Union institutions, bodies, offices or agencies, in point 5 Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725; Amendment 203 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 d (new) (44d)  "deep fake" means manipulated or synthetic audio, image or video content that would falsely appear to be authentic or truthful, and which features depictions of persons appearing to say or do things they did not say or do, produced using AI techniques, including machine learning and deep learning; Amendment 204 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 e (new) (44e)  ‘widespread infringement’ means any act or omission contrary to Union law that protects the interest of individuals: (a)  which has harmed or is likely to harm the collective interests of individuals residing in at least two Member States other than the Member State, in which: (i)  the act or omission originated or took place; (ii)  the provider concerned, or, where applicable, its authorised representative is established; or, (iii)  the deployer is established, when the infringement is committed by the deployer; (b)  which protects the interests of individuals, that have caused, cause or are likely to cause harm to the collective interests of individuals and that have common features, including the same unlawful practice, the same interest being infringed and that are occurring concurrently, committed by the same operator, in at least three Member States; Amendment 205 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 f (new) (44f)  ‘widespread infringement with a Union dimension’ means a widespread infringement that has harmed or is likely to harm the collective interests of individuals in at least two-thirds of the Member States, accounting, together, for at least two-thirds of the population of the Union; Amendment 206 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 g (new) (44g)  ‘regulatory sandbox’ means a controlled environment established by a public authority that facilitates the safe development, testing and validation of innovative AI systems for a limited time before their placement on the market or putting into service pursuant to a specific plan under regulatory supervision; Amendment 207 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 h (new) (44h)  ‘critical infrastructure’ means an asset, a facility, equipment, a network or a system, or a part of an asset, a facility, equipment, a network or a system, which is necessary for the provision of an essential service within the meaning of Article 2(4) of Directive (EU) 2022/2557; Amendment 208 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 k (new) (44k)  ‘social scoring’ means evaluating or classifying natural persons based on their social behaviour, socio-economic status or known or predicted personal or personality characteristics; Amendment 209 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 l (new) (44l)  ‘social behaviour’ means the way a natural person interacts with and influences other natural persons or society; Amendment 210 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 m (new) (44m)  ‘state of the art’ means the developed stage of technical capability at a given time as regards products, processes and services, based on the relevant consolidated findings of science, technology and experience; Amendment 211 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 n (new) (44n)  ‘testing in real world conditions’ means the temporary testing of an AI system for its intended purpose in real world conditions outside of a laboratory or otherwise simulated environment; Amendment 212 Proposal for a regulation Article 4 Article 4 deleted Amendments to Annex I The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 73 to amend the list of techniques and approaches listed in Annex I, in order to update that list to market and technological developments on the basis of characteristics that are similar to the techniques and approaches listed therein. Amendment 213 Proposal for a regulation Article 4 a (new) Article 4 a General principles applicable to all AI systems 1.  All operators falling under this Regulation shall make their best efforts to develop and use AI systems or foundation models in accordance with the following general principles establishing a high-level framework that promotes a coherent human-centric European approach to ethical and trustworthy Artificial Intelligence, which is fully in line with the Charter as well as the values on which the Union is founded: a)  ‘human agency and oversight’ means that AI systems shall be developed and used as a tool that serves people, respects human dignity and personal autonomy, and that is functioning in a way that can be appropriately controlled and overseen by humans; b)  ‘technical robustness and safety’ means that AI systems shall be developed and used in a way to minimize unintended and unexpected harm as well as being robust in case of unintended problems and being resilient against attempts to alter the use or performance of the AI system so as to allow unlawful use by malicious third parties; c)  ‘privacy and data governance’ means that AI systems shall be developed and used in compliance with existing privacy and data protection rules, while processing data that meets high standards in terms of quality and integrity; d)  ‘transparency’ means that AI systems shall be developed and used in a way that allows appropriate traceability and explainability, while making humans aware that they communicate or interact with an AI system as well as duly informing users of the capabilities and limitations of that AI system and affected persons about their rights;. e)  ‘diversity, non-discrimination and fairness’ means that AI systems shall be developed and used in a way that includes diverse actors and promotes equal access, gender equality and cultural diversity, while avoiding discriminatory impacts and unfair biases that are prohibited by Union or national law; f)  ‘social and environmental well-being’ means that AI systems shall be developed and used in a sustainable and environmentally friendly manner as well as in a way to benefit all human beings, while monitoring and assessing the long-term impacts on the individual, society and democracy. 2.  Paragraph 1 is without prejudice to obligations set up by existing Union and national law. For high-risk AI systems, the general principles are translated into and complied with by providers or deployers by means of the requirements set out in Articles 8 to 15, and the relevant obligations laid down in Chapter 3 of Title III of this Regulation. For foundation models, the general principles are translated into and complied with by providers by means of the requirements set out in Articles 28 to 28b. For all AI systems, the application of the principles referred to in paragraph 1 can be achieved, as applicable, through the provisions of Article 28, Article 52, or the application of harmonised standards, technical specifications, and codes of conduct as referred to in Article 69,without creating new obligations under this Regulation. 3.  The Commission and the AI Office shall incorporate these guiding principles in standardisation requests as well as recommendations consisting in technical guidance to assist providers and deployers on how to develop and use AI systems. European Standardisation Organisations shall take the general principles referred to in paragraph 1of this Article into account as outcome-based objectives when developing the appropriate harmonised standards for high risk AI systems as referred to in Article 40(2b). Amendment 214 Proposal for a regulation Article 4 b (new) Article 4 b AI literacy 1.  When implementing this Regulation, the Union and the Member States shall promote measures for the development of a sufficient level of AI literacy, across sectors and taking into account the different needs of groups of providers, deployers and affected persons concerned, including through education and training, skilling and reskilling programmes and while ensuring proper gender and age balance, in view of allowing a democratic control of AI systems 2.  Providers and deployers of AI systems shall take measures to ensure a sufficient level of AI literacy of their staff and other persons dealing with the operation and use of AI systems on their behalf, taking into account their technical knowledge, experience, education and training and the context the AI systems are to be used in, and considering the persons or groups of persons on which the AI systems are to be used. 3.  Such literacy measures shall consist, in particular, of the teaching of basic notions and skills about AI systems and their functioning, including the different types of products and uses, their risks and benefits. 4.  A sufficient level of AI literacy is one that contributes, as necessary, to the ability of providers and deployers to ensure compliance and enforcement of this Regulation. Amendment 215 Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a (a)  the placing on the market, putting into service or use of an AI system that deploys subliminal techniques beyond a person’s consciousness in order to materially distort a person’s behaviour in a manner that causes or is likely to cause that person or another person physical or psychological harm; (a)  the placing on the market, putting into service or use of an AI system that deploys subliminal techniques beyond a person’s consciousness or purposefully manipulative or deceptive techniques, with the objective to or the effect of materially distorting a person’s or a group of persons’ behaviour by appreciably impairing the person’s ability to make an informed decision, thereby causing the person to take a decision that that person would not have otherwise taken in a manner that causes or is likely to cause that person, another person or group of persons significant harm; The prohibition of AI system that deploys subliminal techniques referred to in the first sub-paragraph shall not apply to AI systems intended to be used for approved therapeutical purposes on the basis of specific informed consent of the individuals that are exposed to them or, where applicable, of their legal guardian; Amendment 216 Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b (b)  the placing on the market, putting into service or use of an AI system that exploits any of the vulnerabilities of a specific group of persons due to their age, physical or mental disability, in order to materially distort the behaviour of a person pertaining to that group in a manner that causes or is likely to cause that person or another person physical or psychological harm; (b)  the placing on the market, putting into service or use of an AI system that exploits any of the vulnerabilities of a person or a specific group of persons, including characteristics of such person’s or a such group’s known or predicted personality traits or social or economic situation age, physical or mental ability with the objective or to the effect of materially distorting the behaviour of that person or a person pertaining to that group in a manner that causes or is likely to cause that person or another person significant harm;; Amendment 217 Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new) (b a)  the placing on the market, putting into service or use of biometric categorisation systems that categorise natural persons according to sensitive or protected attributes or characteristics or based on the inference of those attributes or characteristics. This prohibition shall not apply to AI systems intended to be used for approved therapeutical purposes on the basis of specific informed consent of the individuals that are exposed to them or, where applicable, of their legal guardian. Amendment 218 Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c – introductory part (c)  the placing on the market, putting into service or use of AI systems by public authorities or on their behalf for the evaluation or classification of the trustworthiness of natural persons over a certain period of time based on their social behaviour or known or predicted personal or personality characteristics, with the social score leading to either or both of the following: (c)  the placing on the market, putting into service or use of AI systems for the social scoring evaluation or classification of natural persons or groups thereof over a certain period of time based on their social behaviour or known, inferred or predicted personal or personality characteristics, with the social score leading to either or both of the following: Amendment 219 Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c – point i (i)  detrimental or unfavourable treatment of certain natural persons or whole groups thereof in social contexts which are unrelated to the contexts in which the data was originally generated or collected; (i)  detrimental or unfavourable treatment of certain natural persons or whole groups thereof in social contexts that are unrelated to the contexts in which the data was originally generated or collected; Amendment 220 Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d – introductory part (d)  the use of ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement, unless and in as far as such use is strictly necessary for one of the following objectives: (d)  the use of ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces; Amendment 221 Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d – point i (i)  the targeted search for specific potential victims of crime, including missing children; deleted Amendment 222 Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d – point ii (ii)  the prevention of a specific, substantial and imminent threat to the life or physical safety of natural persons or of a terrorist attack; deleted Amendment 223 Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d – point iii (iii)  the detection, localisation, identification or prosecution of a perpetrator or suspect of a criminal offence referred to in Article 2(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA62 and punishable in the Member State concerned by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least three years, as determined by the law of that Member State. deleted __________________ 62 Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1). Amendment 224 Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new) (d a)  the placing on the market, putting into service or use of an AI system for making risk assessments of natural persons or groups thereof in order to assess the risk of a natural person for offending or reoffending or for predicting the occurrence or reoccurrence of an actual or potential criminal or administrative offence based on profiling of a natural person or on assessing personality traits and characteristics, including the person’s location, or past criminal behaviour of natural persons or groups of natural persons; Amendment 225 Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d b (new) (d b)  The placing on the market, putting into service or use of AI systems that create or expand facial recognition databases through the untargeted scraping of facial images from the internet or CCTV footage; Amendment 226 Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d c (new) dc)  the placing on the market, putting into service or use of AI systems to infer emotions of a natural person in the areas of law enforcement, border management, in workplace and education institutions. Amendment 227 Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d d (new) (d d)  the putting into service or use of AI systems for the analysis of recorded footage of publicly accessible spaces through ‘post’ remote biometric identification systems, unless they are subject to a pre-judicial authorisation in accordance with Union law and strictly necessary for the targeted search connected to a specific serious criminal offense as defined in Article 83(1) of TFEU that already took place for the purpose of law enforcement. Amendment 228 Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new) 1 a.  This Article shall not affect the prohibitions that apply where an artificial intelligence practice infringes another Union law, including Union law on data protection, non discrimination, consumer protection or competition; Amendment 229 Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 2 2.  The use of ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement for any of the objectives referred to in paragraph 1 point d) shall take into account the following elements: deleted (a)  the nature of the situation giving rise to the possible use, in particular the seriousness, probability and scale of the harm caused in the absence of the use of the system; (b)  the consequences of the use of the system for the rights and freedoms of all persons concerned, in particular the seriousness, probability and scale of those consequences. In addition, the use of ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement for any of the objectives referred to in paragraph 1 point d) shall comply with necessary and proportionate safeguards and conditions in relation to the use, in particular as regards the temporal, geographic and personal limitations. Amendment 230 Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 3 3.  As regards paragraphs 1, point (d) and 2, each individual use for the purpose of law enforcement of a ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification system in publicly accessible spaces shall be subject to a prior authorisation granted by a judicial authority or by an independent administrative authority of the Member State in which the use is to take place, issued upon a reasoned request and in accordance with the detailed rules of national law referred to in paragraph 4. However, in a duly justified situation of urgency, the use of the system may be commenced without an authorisation and the authorisation may be requested only during or after the use. deleted The competent judicial or administrative authority shall only grant the authorisation where it is satisfied, based on objective evidence or clear indications presented to it, that the use of the ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification system at issue is necessary for and proportionate to achieving one of the objectives specified in paragraph 1, point (d), as identified in the request. In deciding on the request, the competent judicial or administrative authority shall take into account the elements referred to in paragraph 2. Amendment 231 Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 4 4.  A Member State may decide to provide for the possibility to fully or partially authorise the use of ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement within the limits and under the conditions listed in paragraphs 1, point (d), 2 and 3. That Member State shall lay down in its national law the necessary detailed rules for the request, issuance and exercise of, as well as supervision relating to, the authorisations referred to in paragraph 3. Those rules shall also specify in respect of which of the objectives listed in paragraph 1, point (d), including which of the criminal offences referred to in point (iii) thereof, the competent authorities may be authorised to use those systems for the purpose of law enforcement. deleted Amendment 232 Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a (a)  the AI system is intended to be used as a safety component of a product, or is itself a product, covered by the Union harmonisation legislation listed in Annex II; (a)  the AI system is intended to be used as a safety component of a product, or the AI system is itself a product, covered by the Union harmonisation law listed in Annex II; Amendment 233 Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b (b)  the product whose safety component is the AI system, or the AI system itself as a product, is required to undergo a third-party conformity assessment with a view to the placing on the market or putting into service of that product pursuant to the Union harmonisation legislation listed in Annex II. (b)  the product whose safety component pursuant to point (a) is the AI system, or the AI system itself as a product, is required to undergo a third-party conformity assessment related to risks for health and safety, with a view to the placing on the market or putting into service of that product pursuant to the Union harmonisation law listed in Annex II; Amendment 234 Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 2 2.  In addition to the high-risk AI systems referred to in paragraph 1, AI systems referred to in Annex III shall also be considered high-risk. 2.  In addition to the high-risk AI systems referred to in paragraph 1, AI systems falling under one or more of the critical areas and use cases referred to in Annex III shall be considered high-risk if they pose a significant risk of harm to the health, safety or fundamental rights of natural persons. Where an AI system falls under Annex III point 2, it shall be considered to be high-risk if it poses a significant risk of harm to the environment. The Commission shall, six months prior to the entry into force of this Regulation, after consulting the AI Office and relevant stakeholders, provide guidelines clearly specifying the circumstances where the output of AI systems referred to in Annex III would pose a significant risk of harm to the health, safety or fundamental rights of natural persons or cases in which it would not. Amendment 235 Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a.  Where providers falling under one or more of the critical areas and use cases referred to in Annex III consider that their AI system does not pose a significant risk as described in paragraph 2, they shall submit a reasoned notification to the national supervisory authority that they are not subject to the requirements of Title III Chapter 2 of this Regulation. Where the AI system is intended to be used in two or more Member States, that notification shall be addressed to the AI Office. Without prejudice to Article 65, the national supervisory authority shall review and reply to the notification, directly or via the AI Office, within three months if they deem the AI system to be misclassified. Amendment 236 Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2 b.  Providers that misclassify their AI system as not subject to the requirements of Title III Chapter 2 of this Regulation and place it on the market before the deadline for objection by national supervisory authorities shall be subject to fines pursuant to Article 71. Amendment 237 Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 2 b (new) 2 c.  National supervisory authorities shall submit a yearly report to the AI Office detailing the number of notifications received, the related high-risk areas at stake and the decisions taken concerning received notifications Amendment 238 Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part 1.  The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 73 to update the list in Annex III by adding high-risk AI systems where both of the following conditions are fulfilled: 1.  The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 73 to amend Annex III by adding or modifying areas or use-cases of high-risk AI systems where these pose a significant risk of harm to health and safety, or an adverse impact on fundamental rights, to the environment, or to democracy and the rule of law, and that risk is, in respect of its severity and probability of occurrence, equivalent to or greater than the risk of harm or of adverse impact posed by the high-risk AI systems already referred to in Annex III. Amendment 239 Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a (a)  the AI systems are intended to be used in any of the areas listed in points 1 to 8 of Annex III; deleted Amendment 240 Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point b (b)  the AI systems pose a risk of harm to the health and safety, or a risk of adverse impact on fundamental rights, that is, in respect of its severity and probability of occurrence, equivalent to or greater than the risk of harm or of adverse impact posed by the high-risk AI systems already referred to in Annex III. deleted Amendment 241 Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 1 a (new) 1 a.  The Commission is also empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 73 to remove use-cases of high-risk AI systems from the list in Annex III if the conditions referred to in paragraph 1 no longer apply; Amendment 242 Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 2 – introductory part 2.  When assessing for the purposes of paragraph 1 whether an AI system poses a risk of harm to the health and safety or a risk of adverse impact on fundamental rights that is equivalent to or greater than the risk of harm posed by the high-risk AI systems already referred to in Annex III, the Commission shall take into account the following criteria: 2.  When assessing an AI system for the purposes of paragraph 1 and 1a the Commission shall take into account the following criteria: Amendment 243 Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new) (a a)  the general capabilities and functionalities of the AI system independent of its intended purpose; Amendment 244 Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new) (b a)  the nature and amount of the data processed and used by the AI system; Amendment 245 Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point b b (new) (b b)  the extent to which the AI system acts autonomously; Amendment 246 Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point c (c)  the extent to which the use of an AI system has already caused harm to the health and safety or adverse impact on the fundamental rights or has given rise to significant concerns in relation to the materialisation of such harm or adverse impact, as demonstrated by reports or documented allegations submitted to national competent authorities; (c)  the extent to which the use of an AI system has already caused harm to health and safety, has had an adverse impact on fundamental rights, the environment, democracy and the rule of law or has given rise to significant concerns in relation to the likelihood of such harm or adverse impact, as demonstrated for example by reports or documented allegations submitted to national supervisory authorities, to the Commission, to the AI Office, to the EDPS, or to the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights; Amendment 247 Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point d (d)  the potential extent of such harm or such adverse impact, in particular in terms of its intensity and its ability to affect a plurality of persons; (d)  the potential extent of such harm or such adverse impact, in particular in terms of its intensity and its ability to affect a plurality of persons or to disproportionately affect a particular group of persons; Amendment 248 Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point e (e)  the extent to which potentially harmed or adversely impacted persons are dependent on the outcome produced with an AI system, in particular because for practical or legal reasons it is not reasonably possible to opt-out from that outcome; (e)  the extent to which potentially harmed or adversely impacted persons are dependent on the output produced involving an AI system, and that output is purely accessory in respect of the relevant action or decision to be taken, in particular because for practical or legal reasons it is not reasonably possible to opt-out from that output; Amendment 249 Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point e a (new) (e a)  the potential misuse and malicious use of the AI system and of the technology underpinning it; Amendment 250 Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point f (f)  the extent to which potentially harmed or adversely impacted persons are in a vulnerable position in relation to the user of an AI system, in particular due to an imbalance of power, knowledge, economic or social circumstances, or age; (f)  the extent to which there is an imbalance of power, or the potentially harmed or adversely impacted persons are in a vulnerable position in relation to the user of an AI system, in particular due to status, authority, knowledge, economic or social circumstances, or age; Amendment 251 Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point g (g)  the extent to which the outcome produced with an AI system is easily reversible, whereby outcomes having an impact on the health or safety of persons shall not be considered as easily reversible; (g)  the extent to which the outcome produced involving an AI system is easily reversible or remedied, whereby outcomes having an adverse impact on health, safety, fundamental rights of persons, the environment, or on democracy and rule of law shall not be considered as easily reversible; Amendment 252 Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point g a (new) (g a)  the extent of the availability and use of effective technical solutions and mechanisms for the control, reliability and corrigibility of the AI system; Amendment 253 Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point g b (new) (g b)  the magnitude and likelihood of benefit of the deployment of the AI system for individuals, groups, or society at large, including possible improvements in product safety; Amendment 254 Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point g c (new) (g c)  the extent of human oversight and the possibility for a human to intercede in order to override a decision or recommendations that may lead to potential harm; Amendment 255 Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point h – (i)  effective measures of redress in relation to the risks posed by an AI system, with the exclusion of claims for damages; (h)  the extent to which existing Union law provides for: (i)  effective measures of redress in relation to the damage caused by an AI system, with the exclusion of claims for direct or indirect damages; (ii)  effective measures to prevent or substantially minimise those risks. Amendment 256 Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a.  When assessing an AI system for the purposes of paragraphs 1 or 1a the Commission shall consult the AI Office and, where relevant, representatives of groups on which an AI system has an impact, industry, independent experts, the social partners, and civil society organisations. The Commission shall also organise public consultations in this regard and shall make the results of those consultations and of the final assessment publicly available; Amendment 257 Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 2 b (new) 2 b.  The AI Office, national supervisory authorities or the European Parliament may request the Commission to reassess and recategorise the risk categorisation of an AI systemin accordance with paragraphs 1 and 1a. The Commission shall give reasons for its decision and make them public. Amendment 258 Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 1 a (new) 1 a.  In complying with the requirement established in this Chapter, due account shall be taken of guidelines developed as referred to in Article 82b, the generally acknowledged state of the art, including as reflected in the relevant harmonised standards and common specifications as referred to in articles 40 and 41 or those already set out in Union harmonisation law;. Amendment 259 Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 2 2.  The intended purpose of the high-risk AI system and the risk management system referred to in Article 9 shall be taken into account when ensuring compliance with those requirements. 2.  The intended purpose of the high-risk AI system, the reasonably foreseeable misuses and the risk management system referred to in Article 9 shall be taken into account when ensuring compliance with those requirements. Amendment 260 Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a.  As long as the requirements of Title III, Chapters 2 and 3 or Title VIII, Chapters 1, 2 and 3 for high-risk AI systems are addressed by Union harmonisation law listed in Annex II, Section A, the requirements or obligations of those Chapters of this Regulation shall be deemed to be fulfilled, as long as they include the AI component. Requirements of Chapters 2 and 3 of Title III or Title VIII, Chapters 1, 2 and 3 for high-risk AI systems not addressed by Union harmonisation law listed in Annex II Section A, shall be incorporated into that Union harmonisation law, where applicable. The relevant conformity assessment shall be carried out as part of the procedures laid out under Union harmonisation law listed in Annex II, Section A. Amendment 261 Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 1 1.  A risk management system shall be established, implemented, documented and maintained in relation to high-risk AI systems. 1.  A risk management system shall be established, implemented, documented and maintained in relation to high-risk AI systems, throughout the entire lifecycle of the AI system. The risk management system can be integrated into, or a part of, already existing risk management procedures relating to the relevant Union sectoral law insofar as it fulfils the requirements of this article. Amendment 262 Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 2 – introductory part 2.  The risk management system shall consist of a continuous iterative process run throughout the entire lifecycle of a high-risk AI system, requiring regular systematic updating. It shall comprise the following steps: 2.  The risk management system shall consist of a continuous iterative process run throughout the entire lifecycle of a high-risk AI system, requiring regular review and updating of the risk management process, to ensure its continuing effectiveness, and documentation of any significant decisions and actions taken subject to this Article. It shall comprise the following steps: Amendment 263 Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point a (a)  identification and analysis of the known and foreseeable risks associated with each high-risk AI system; (a)  identification, estimation and evaluation of the known and the reasonably foreseeable risks that the high-risk AI system can pose to the health or safety of natural persons, their fundamental rights including equal access and opportunities, democracy and rule of law or the environement when the high-risk AI system is used in accordance with its intended purpose and under conditions of reasonably foreseeable misuse; Amendment 264 Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point b (b)  estimation and evaluation of the risks that may emerge when the high-risk AI system is used in accordance with its intended purpose and under conditions of reasonably foreseeable misuse; deleted Amendment 265 Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point c (c)  evaluation of other possibly arising risks based on the analysis of data gathered from the post-market monitoring system referred to in Article 61; (c)  evaluation of emerging significant risks as described in point (a) and identified based on the analysis of data gathered from the post-market monitoring system referred to in Article 61; Amendment 266 Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point d (d)  adoption of suitable risk management measures in accordance with the provisions of the following paragraphs. (d)  adoption of appropriate and targeted risk management measures designed to address the risks identified pursuant to points a and b of this paragraph in accordance with the provisions of the following paragraphs Amendment 267 Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 3 3.  The risk management measures referred to in paragraph 2, point (d) shall give due consideration to the effects and possible interactions resulting from the combined application of the requirements set out in this Chapter 2. They shall take into account the generally acknowledged state of the art, including as reflected in relevant harmonised standards or common specifications. 3.  The risk management measures referred to in paragraph 2, point (d) shall give due consideration to the effects and possible interactions resulting from the combined application of the requirements set out in this Chapter 2, with a view to mitigate risks effectively while ensuring an appropriate and proportionate implementation of the requirements. Amendment 268 Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 4 – introductory part 4.  The risk management measures referred to in paragraph 2, point (d) shall be such that any residual risk associated with each hazard as well as the overall residual risk of the high-risk AI systems is judged acceptable, provided that the high-risk AI system is used in accordance with its intended purpose or under conditions of reasonably foreseeable misuse. Those residual risks shall be communicated to the user. 4.  The risk management measures referred to in paragraph 2, point (d) shall be such that relevant residual risk associated with each hazard as well as the overall residual risk of the high-risk AI systems is reasonably judged to be acceptable, provided that the high-risk AI system is used in accordance with its intended purpose or under conditions of reasonably foreseeable misuse. Those residual risks and the reasoned judgements made shall be communicated to the deployer. In identifying the most appropriate risk management measures, the following shall be ensured: Amendment 269 Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point a (a)  elimination or reduction of risks as far as possible through adequate design and development; (a)  elimination or reduction of identified risks as far as technically feasible through adequate design and development of the high-risk AI system, involving when relevant, experts and external stakeholders; Amendment 270 Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point b (b)  where appropriate, implementation of adequate mitigation and control measures in relation to risks that cannot be eliminated; (b)  where appropriate, implementation of adequate mitigation and control measures addressing significant risks that cannot be eliminated; Amendment 271 Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point c (c)  provision of adequate information pursuant to Article 13, in particular as regards the risks referred to in paragraph 2, point (b) of this Article, and, where appropriate, training to users. (c)  provision of the required information pursuant to Article 13, and, where appropriate, training to deployers. Amendment 272 Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2 In eliminating or reducing risks related to the use of the high-risk AI system, due consideration shall be given to the technical knowledge, experience, education, training to be expected by the user and the environment in which the system is intended to be used. In eliminating or reducing risks related to the use of the high-risk AI system, providers shall take into due consideration the technical knowledge, experience, education and training the deployer may need, including in relation to the presumable context of use. Amendment 273 Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 5 5.  High-risk AI systems shall be tested for the purposes of identifying the most appropriate risk management measures. Testing shall ensure that high-risk AI systems perform consistently for their intended purpose and they are in compliance with the requirements set out in this Chapter. 5.  High-risk AI systems shall be tested for the purposes of identifying the most appropriate and targeted risk management measures and weighing any such measures against the potential benefits and intended goals of the system. Testing shall ensure that high-risk AI systems perform consistently for their intended purpose and they are in compliance with the requirements set out in this Chapter. Amendment 274 Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 6 6.  Testing procedures shall be suitable to achieve the intended purpose of the AI system and do not need to go beyond what is necessary to achieve that purpose. 6.  Testing procedures shall be suitable to achieve the intended purpose of the AI system. Amendment 275 Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 7 7.  The testing of the high-risk AI systems shall be performed, as appropriate, at any point in time throughout the development process, and, in any event, prior to the placing on the market or the putting into service. Testing shall be made against preliminarily defined metrics and probabilistic thresholds that are appropriate to the intended purpose of the high-risk AI system. 7.  The testing of the high-risk AI systems shall be performed, prior to the placing on the market or the putting into service. Testing shall be made against prior defined metrics, and probabilistic thresholds that are appropriate to the intended purpose or reasonably foreseeable misuse of the high-risk AI system. Amendment 276 Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 8 8.  When implementing the risk management system described in paragraphs 1 to 7, specific consideration shall be given to whether the high-risk AI system is likely to be accessed by or have an impact on children. 8.  When implementing the risk management system described in paragraphs 1 to 7, providers shall give specific consideration to whether the high-risk AI system is likely to adversely impact vulnerable groups of people or children. Amendment 277 Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 9 9.  For credit institutions regulated by Directive 2013/36/EU, the aspects described in paragraphs 1 to 8 shall be part of the risk management procedures established by those institutions pursuant to Article 74 of that Directive. 9.  For providers and AI systems already covered by Union law that require them to establish a specific risk management, including credit institutions regulated by Directive 2013/36/EU, the aspects described in paragraphs 1 to 8 shall be part of or combined with the risk management procedures established by that Union law. Amendment 278 Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 1 1.  High-risk AI systems which make use of techniques involving the training of models with data shall be developed on the basis of training, validation and testing data sets that meet the quality criteria referred to in paragraphs 2 to 5. 1.  High-risk AI systems which make use of techniques involving the training of models with data shall be developed on the basis of training, validation and testing data sets that meet the quality criteria referred to in paragraphs 2 to 5 as far as this is technically feasible according to the specific market segment or scope of application. Techniques that do not require labelled input data such as unsupervised learning and reinforcement learning shall be developed on the basis of data sets such as for testing and verification that meet the quality criteria referred to in paragraphs 2 to 5. Amendment 279 Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 2 – introductory part 2.  Training, validation and testing data sets shall be subject to appropriate data governance and management practices. Those practices shall concern in particular, 2.  Training, validation and testing data sets shall be subject to data governance appropriate for the context of use as well as the intended purpose of the AI system. Those measures shall concern in particular, Amendment 280 Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new) (a a)  transparency as regards the original purpose of data collection; Amendment 281 Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point b (b)  data collection; (b)  data collection processes; Amendment 282 Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point c (c)  relevant data preparation processing operations, such as annotation, labelling, cleaning, enrichment and aggregation; (c)  data preparation processing operations, such as annotation, labelling, cleaning, updating enrichment and aggregation; Amendment 283 Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point d (d)  the formulation of relevant assumptions, notably with respect to the information that the data are supposed to measure and represent; (d)  the formulation of assumptions, notably with respect to the information that the data are supposed to measure and represent; Amendment 284 Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point e (e)  a prior assessment of the availability, quantity and suitability of the data sets that are needed; (e)  an assessment of the availability, quantity and suitability of the data sets that are needed; Amendment 285 Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point f (f)  examination in view of possible biases; (f)  examination in view of possible biases that are likely to affect the health and safety of persons, negatively impact fundamental rights or lead to discrimination prohibited under Union law, especially where data outputs influence inputs for future operations (‘feedback loops’) and appropriate measures to detect, prevent and mitigate possible biases; Amendment 286 Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point f a (new) (f a)  appropriate measures to detect, prevent and mitigate possible biases Amendment 287 Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point g (g)  the identification of any possible data gaps or shortcomings, and how those gaps and shortcomings can be addressed. (g)  the identification of relevant data gaps or shortcomings that prevent compliance with this Regulation, and how those gaps and shortcomings can be addressed; Amendment 288 Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 3 3.  Training, validation and testing data sets shall be relevant, representative, free of errors and complete. They shall have the appropriate statistical properties, including, where applicable, as regards the persons or groups of persons on which the high-risk AI system is intended to be used. These characteristics of the data sets may be met at the level of individual data sets or a combination thereof. 3.  Training datasets, and where they are used, validation and testing datasets, including the labels, shall be relevant, sufficiently representative, appropriately vetted for errors and be as complete as possible in view of the intended purpose. They shall have the appropriate statistical properties, including, where applicable, as regards the persons or groups of persons in relation to whom the high-risk AI system is intended to be used. These characteristics of the datasets shall be met at the level of individual datasets or a combination thereof. Amendment 289 Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 4 4.  Training, validation and testing data sets shall take into account, to the extent required by the intended purpose, the characteristics or elements that are particular to the specific geographical, behavioural or functional setting within which the high-risk AI system is intended to be used. 4.  Datasets shall take into account, to the extent required by the intended purpose or reasonably foreseeable misuses of the AI system, the characteristics or elements that are particular to the specific geographical, contextual behavioural or functional setting within which the high-risk AI system is intended to be used. Amendment 290 Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 5 5.  To the extent that it is strictly necessary for the purposes of ensuring bias monitoring, detection and correction in relation to the high-risk AI systems, the providers of such systems may process special categories of personal data referred to in Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 10 of Directive (EU) 2016/680 and Article 10(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, subject to appropriate safeguards for the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons, including technical limitations on the re-use and use of state-of-the-art security and privacy-preserving measures, such as pseudonymisation, or encryption where anonymisation may significantly affect the purpose pursued. 5.  To the extent that it is strictly necessary for the purposes of ensuring negative bias detection and correction in relation to the high-risk AI systems, the providers of such systems may exceptionally process special categories of personal data referred to in Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 10 of Directive (EU) 2016/680 and Article 10(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, subject to appropriate safeguards for the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons, including technical limitations on the re-use and use of state-of-the-art security and privacy-preserving. In particular, all the following conditions shall apply in order for this processing to occur: (a) the bias detection and correction cannot be effectively fulfilled by processing synthetic or anonymised data; (b)  the data are pseudonymised; (c)  the provider takes appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure that the data processed for the purpose of this paragraph are secured, protected, subject to suitable safeguards and only authorised persons have access to those data with appropriate confidentiality obligations; (d)  the data processed for the purpose of this paragraph are not to be transmitted, transferred or otherwise accessed by other parties; (e)  the data processed for the purpose of this paragraph are protected by means of appropriate technical and organisational measures and deleted once the bias has been corrected or the personal data has reached the end of its retention period; (f)  effective and appropriate measures are in place to ensure availability, security and resilience of processing systems and services against technical or physical incidents; (g)  effective and appropriate measures are in place to ensure physical security of locations where the data are stored and processed, internal IT and IT security governance and management, certification of processes and products; Providers having recourse to this provision shall draw up documentation explaining why the processing of special categories of personal data was necessary to detect and correct biases. Amendment 291 Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 6 a (new) 6 a.  Where the provider cannot comply with the obligations laid down in this Article because that provider does not have access to the data and the data is held exclusively by the deployer, the deployer may, on the basis of a contract, be made responsible for any infringement of this Article. Amendment 292 Proposal for a regulation Article 11 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 The technical documentation shall be drawn up in such a way to demonstrate that the high-risk AI system complies with the requirements set out in this Chapter and provide national competent authorities and notified bodies with all the necessary information to assess the compliance of the AI system with those requirements. It shall contain, at a minimum, the elements set out in Annex IV. The technical documentation shall be drawn up in such a way to demonstrate that the high-risk AI system complies with the requirements set out in this Chapter and provide national supervisory authorities and notified bodies with the necessary information to assess the compliance of the AI system with those requirements. It shall contain, at a minimum, the elements set out in Annex IV or, in the case of SMEs and start-ups, any equivalent documentation meeting the same objectives, subject to approval of the competent national authority. Amendment 293 Proposal for a regulation Article 11 – paragraph 2 2.  Where a high-risk AI system related to a product, to which the legal acts listed in Annex II, section A apply, is placed on the market or put into service one single technical documentation shall be drawn up containing all the information set out in Annex IV as well as the information required under those legal acts. 2.  Where a high-risk AI system related to a product, to which the legal acts listed in Annex II, section A apply, is placed on the market or put into service one single technical documentation shall be drawn up containing all the information set out in paragraph 1 as well as the information required under those legal acts. Amendment 294 Proposal for a regulation Article 11 – paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a.  Providers that are credit institutions regulated by Directive 2013/36/EU shall maintain the technical documentation as part of the documentation concerning internal governance, arrangements, processes and mechanisms pursuant to Article 74 of that Directive. Amendment 295 Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 1 1.  High-risk AI systems shall be designed and developed with capabilities enabling the automatic recording of events (‘logs’) while the high-risk AI systems is operating. Those logging capabilities shall conform to recognised standards or common specifications. 1.  High-risk AI systems shall be designed and developed with capabilities enabling the automatic recording of events (‘logs’) while the high-risk AI systems is operating. Those logging capabilities shall conform to the state of the art and recognised standards or common specifications. Amendment 296 Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 2 2.  The logging capabilities shall ensure a level of traceability of the AI system’s functioning throughout its lifecycle that is appropriate to the intended purpose of the system. 2.  In order to ensure a level of traceability of the AI system’s functioning throughout its entire lifetime that is appropriate to the intended purpose of the system, the logging capabilities shall facilitate the monitoring of operations as referred to in Article 29(4) as well as the post market monitoring referred to in Article 61. In particular, they shall enable the recording of events relevant for the identification of situations that may: (a)  result in the AI system presenting a risk within the meaning of Article65(1); or (b)  lead to a substantial modification of the AI system. Amendment 297 Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a.  High-risk AI systems shall be designed and developed with, the logging capabilities enabling the recording of energy consumption, the measurement or calculation of resource use and environmental impact of the high-risk AI system during all phases of the system’s lifecycle. Amendment 298 Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 3 3.  In particular, logging capabilities shall enable the monitoring of the operation of the high-risk AI system with respect to the occurrence of situations that may result in the AI system presenting a risk within the meaning of Article 65(1) or lead to a substantial modification, and facilitate the post-market monitoring referred to in Article 61. deleted Amendment 299 Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – title Transparency and provision of information to users Transparency and provision of information Amendment 300 Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 1 1.  High-risk AI systems shall be designed and developed in such a way to ensure that their operation is sufficiently transparent to enable users to interpret the system’s output and use it appropriately. An appropriate type and degree of transparency shall be ensured, with a view to achieving compliance with the relevant obligations of the user and of the provider set out in Chapter 3 of this Title. 1.  High-risk AI systems shall be designed and developed in such a way to ensure that their operation is sufficiently transparent to enable providers and users to reasonably understand the system’s functioning. Appropriate transparency shall be ensured in accordance with the intended purpose of the AI system, with a view to achieving compliance with the relevant obligations of the provider and user set out in Chapter 3 of this Title. Transparency shall thereby mean that, at the time the high-risk AI system is placed on the market, all technical means available in accordance with the generally acknowledged state of art are used to ensure that the AI system’s output is interpretable by the provider and the user. The user shall be enabled to understand and use the AI system appropriately by generally knowing how the AI system works and what data it processes, allowing the user to explain the decisions taken by the AI system to the affected person pursuant to Article 68(c). Amendment 301 Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 2 2.  High-risk AI systems shall be accompanied by instructions for use in an appropriate digital format or otherwise that include concise, complete, correct and clear information that is relevant, accessible and comprehensible to users. 2.  High-risk AI systems shall be accompanied by intelligible instructions for use in an appropriate digital format or made otherwise available in a durable medium that include concise, correct, clear and to the extent possible complete information that helps operating and maintaining the AI system as well as supporting informed decision-making by users and is reasonably relevant, accessible and comprehensible to users . Amendment 302 Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 3 – introductory part 3.  The information referred to in paragraph 2 shall specify: 3.  To achieve the outcomes referred to in paragraph 1, information referred to in paragraph 2 shall specify: Amendment 303 Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 3 – point a (a)  the identity and the contact details of the provider and, where applicable, of its authorised representative; (a)  the identity and the contact details of the provider and, where applicable, of its authorised representatives; Amendment 304 Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 3 – point a a (new) (aa)  where it is not the same as the provider, the identity and the contact details of the entity that carried out the conformity assessment and, where applicable, of its authorised representative; Amendment 305 Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 3 – point b – introductory part (b)  the characteristics, capabilities and limitations of performance of the high-risk AI system, including: (b)  the characteristics, capabilities and limitations of performance of the high-risk AI system, including, where appropriate: Amendment 306 Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 3 – point b – point ii (ii)  the level of accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity referred to in Article 15 against which the high-risk AI system has been tested and validated and which can be expected, and any known and foreseeable circumstances that may have an impact on that expected level of accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity; (ii)  the level of accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity referred to in Article 15 against which the high-risk AI system has been tested and validated and which can be expected, and any clearly known and foreseeable circumstances that may have an impact on that expected level of accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity; Amendment 307 Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 3 – point b – point iii (iii)  any known or foreseeable circumstance, related to the use of the high-risk AI system in accordance with its intended purpose or under conditions of reasonably foreseeable misuse, which may lead to risks to the health and safety or fundamental rights; (iii)  any clearly known or foreseeable circumstance, related to the use of the high-risk AI system in accordance with its intended purpose or under conditions of reasonably foreseeable misuse, which may lead to risks to the health and safety, fundamental rights or the environment, including, where appropriate, illustrative examples of such limitations and of scenarios for which the system should not be used; Amendment 308 Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 3 – point b – point iii a (new) (iiia)  the degree to which the AI system can provide an explanation for decisions it takes; Amendment 309 Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 3 – point b – point v (v)  when appropriate, specifications for the input data, or any other relevant information in terms of the training, validation and testing data sets used, taking into account the intended purpose of the AI system. (v)  relevant information about user actions that may influence system performance, including type or quality of input data, or any other relevant information in terms of the training, validation and testing data sets used, taking into account the intended purpose of the AI system. Amendment 310 Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 3 – point e (e)  the expected lifetime of the high-risk AI system and any necessary maintenance and care measures to ensure the proper functioning of that AI system, including as regards software updates. (e)  any necessary maintenance and care measures to ensure the proper functioning of that AI system, including as regards software updates, through its expected lifetime. Amendment 311 Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 3 – point e a (new) (ea)  a description of the mechanisms included within the AI system that allows users to properly collect, store and interpret the logs in accordance with Article 12(1). Amendment 312 Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 3 – point e b (new) (eb)  The information shall be provided at least in the language of the country where the AI system is used. Amendment 313 Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 3 a (new) 3a.  In order to comply with the obligations laid down in this Article, providers and users shall ensure a sufficient level of AI literacy in line with Article 4b. Amendment 314 Proposal for a regulation Article 14 – paragraph 1 1.  High-risk AI systems shall be designed and developed in such a way, including with appropriate human-machine interface tools, that they can be effectively overseen by natural persons during the period in which the AI system is in use. 1.  High-risk AI systems shall be designed and developed in such a way, including with appropriate human-machine interface tools, that they be effectively overseen by natural persons as proportionate to the risks associated with those systems. Natural persons in charge of ensuring human oversight shall have sufficient level of AI literacy in accordance with Article 4b and the necessary support and authority to exercise that function, during the period in which the AI system is in use and to allow for thorough investigation after an incident. Amendment 315 Proposal for a regulation Article 14 – paragraph 2 2.  Human oversight shall aim at preventing or minimising the risks to health, safety or fundamental rights that may emerge when a high-risk AI system is used in accordance with its intended purpose or under conditions of reasonably foreseeable misuse, in particular when such risks persist notwithstanding the application of other requirements set out in this Chapter. 2.  Human oversight shall aim at preventing or minimising the risks to health, safety, fundamental rights or environment that may emerge when a high-risk AI system is used in accordance with its intended purpose or under conditions of reasonably foreseeable misuse, in particular when such risks persist notwithstanding the application of other requirements set out in this Chapter and where decisions based solely on automated processing by AI systems produce legal or otherwise significant effects on the persons or groups of persons on which the system is to be used. Amendment 316 Proposal for a regulation Article 14 – paragraph 3 – introductory part 3.  Human oversight shall be ensured through either one or all of the following measures: 3.  Human oversight shall take into account the specific risks, the level of automation, and context of the AI system and shall be ensured through either one or all of the following types of measures: Amendment 317 Proposal for a regulation Article 14 – paragraph 4 – introductory part 4.  The measures referred to in paragraph 3 shall enable the individuals to whom human oversight is assigned to do the following, as appropriate to the circumstances: 4.  For the purpose of implementing paragraphs 1 to 3, the high-risk AI system shall be provided to the user in such a way that natural persons to whom human oversight is assigned are enabled, as appropriate and proportionate to the circumstances: Amendment 318 Proposal for a regulation Article 14 – paragraph 4 – point a (a)  fully understand the capacities and limitations of the high-risk AI system and be able to duly monitor its operation, so that signs of anomalies, dysfunctions and unexpected performance can be detected and addressed as soon as possible; (a)  be aware of and sufficiently understand the relevant capacities and limitations of the high-risk AI system and be able to duly monitor its operation, so that signs of anomalies, dysfunctions and unexpected performance can be detected and addressed as soon as possible; Amendment 319 Proposal for a regulation Article 14 – paragraph 4 – point e (e)  be able to intervene on the operation of the high-risk AI system or interrupt the system through a “stop” button or a similar procedure. (e)  be able to intervene on the operation of the high-risk AI system or interrupt, the system through a “stop” button or a similar procedure that allows the system to come to a halt in a safe state, except if the human interference increases the risks or would negatively impact the performance in consideration of generally acknowledged state-of-the-art. Amendment 320 Proposal for a regulation Article 14 – paragraph 5 5.  For high-risk AI systems referred to in point 1(a) of Annex III, the measures referred to in paragraph 3 shall be such as to ensure that, in addition, no action or decision is taken by the user on the basis of the identification resulting from the system unless this has been verified and confirmed by at least two natural persons. 5.  For high-risk AI systems referred to in point1(a) of Annex III, the measures referred to in paragraph 3 shall be such as to ensure that, in addition, no action or decision is taken by the user on the basis of the identification resulting from the system unless this has been verified and confirmed by at least two natural persons with the necessary competence, training and authority. Amendment 321 Proposal for a regulation Article 15 – paragraph 1 1.  High-risk AI systems shall be designed and developed in such a way that they achieve, in the light of their intended purpose, an appropriate level of accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity, and perform consistently in those respects throughout their lifecycle. 1.  High-risk AI systems shall be designed and developed following the principle of security by design and by default. In the light of their intended purpose, they should achieve an appropriate level of accuracy, robustness, safety, and cybersecurity, and perform consistently in those respects throughout their lifecycle. Compliance with these requirements shall include implementation of state-of-the-art measures, according to the specific market segment or scope of application. Amendment 322 Proposal for a regulation Article 15 – paragraph 1 a (new) 1 a.  To address the technical aspects of how to measure the appropriate levels of accuracy and robustness set out in paragraph 1 of this Article, the AI Office shall bring together national and international metrology and benchmarking authorities and provide non-binding guidance on the matter as set out in Article 56, paragraph 2, point (a). Amendment 323 Proposal for a regulation Article 15 – paragraph 1 b (new) 1b.  To address any emerging issues across the internal market with regard to cybersecurity, the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA) shall be involved alongside the European Artificial Intelligence Board as set out Article 56, paragraph 2, point (b). Amendment 324 Proposal for a regulation Article 15 – paragraph 2 2.  The levels of accuracy and the relevant accuracy metrics of high-risk AI systems shall be declared in the accompanying instructions of use. 2.  The levels of accuracy and the relevant accuracy metrics of high-risk AI systems shall be declared in the accompanying instructions of use. The language used shall be clear, free of misunderstandings or misleading statements. Amendment 325 Proposal for a regulation Article 15 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 High-risk AI systems shall be resilient as regards errors, faults or inconsistencies that may occur within the system or the environment in which the system operates, in particular due to their interaction with natural persons or other systems. Technical and organisational measures shall be taken to ensure that high-risk AI systems shall be as resilient as possible regarding errors, faults or inconsistencies that may occur within the system or the environment in which the system operates, in particular due to their interaction with natural persons or other systems. Amendment 326 Proposal for a regulation Article 15 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 The robustness of high-risk AI systems may be achieved through technical redundancy solutions, which may include backup or fail-safe plans. The robustness of high-risk AI systems may be achieved by the appropriate provider with input from the user, where necessary, through technical redundancy solutions, which may include backup or fail-safe plans. Amendment 327 Proposal for a regulation Article 15 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3 High-risk AI systems that continue to learn after being placed on the market or put into service shall be developed in such a way to ensure that possibly biased outputs due to outputs used as an input for future operations (‘feedback loops’) are duly addressed with appropriate mitigation measures. High-risk AI systems that continue to learn after being placed on the market or put into service shall be developed in such a way to ensure that possibly biased outputs influencing input for future operations (‘feedback loops’) and malicious manipulation of inputs used in learning during operation are duly addressed with appropriate mitigation measures. Amendment 328 Proposal for a regulation Article 15 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 High-risk AI systems shall be resilient as regards attempts by unauthorised third parties to alter their use or performance by exploiting the system vulnerabilities. High-risk AI systems shall be resilient as regards to attempts by unauthorised third parties to alter their use, behaviour, outputs or performance by exploiting the system vulnerabilities. Amendment 329 Proposal for a regulation Article 15 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3 The technical solutions to address AI specific vulnerabilities shall include, where appropriate, measures to prevent and control for attacks trying to manipulate the training dataset (‘data poisoning’), inputs designed to cause the model to make a mistake (‘adversarial examples’), or model flaws. The technical solutions to address AI specific vulnerabilities shall include, where appropriate, measures to prevent, detect, respond to, resolve and control for attacks trying to manipulate the training dataset (‘data poisoning’), or pre-trained components used in training (‘model poisoning’) , inputs designed to cause the model to make a mistake (‘adversarial examples’ or ‘model evasion’), confidentiality attacks or model flaws, which could lead to harmful decision-making. Amendment 330 Proposal for a regulation Title III – Chapter 3 – title OBLIGATIONS OF PROVIDERS AND USERS OF HIGH-RISK AI SYSTEMS and other parties OBLIGATIONS OF PROVIDERS AND DEPLOYERS OF HIGH-RISK AI SYSTEMS AND OTHER PARTIES Amendment 331 Proposal for a regulation Article 16 – title Obligations of providers of high-risk AI systems Obligations of providers and deployers of high-risk AI systems and other parties Amendment 332 Proposal for a regulation Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point a (a)  ensure that their high-risk AI systems are compliant with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title; (a)  ensure that their high-risk AI systems are compliant with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title before placing them on the market or putting them into service; Amendment 333 Proposal for a regulation Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new) (a a)  indicate their name, registered trade name or registered trade mark, and their address and contact information on the high-risk AI system or, where that is not possible, on its accompanying documentation, as appropriate; Amendment 334 Proposal for a regulation Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point a b (new) (a b)  ensure that natural persons to whom human oversight of high-risk AI systems is assigned are specifically made aware of the risk of automation or confirmation bias; Amendment 335 Proposal for a regulation Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point a c (new) (a c)  provide specifications for the input data, or any other relevant information in terms of the datasets used, including their limitation and assumptions, taking into account the intended purpose and the foreseeable and reasonably foreseeable misuses of the AI system; Amendment 336 Proposal for a regulation Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point c (c)  draw-up the technical documentation of the high-risk AI system; (c)  draw-up and keep the technical documentation of the high-risk AI system referred to in Article 11; Amendment 337 Proposal for a regulation Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point d (d)  when under their control, keep the logs automatically generated by their high-risk AI systems; (d)  when under their control, keep the logs automatically generated by their high-risk AI systems that are required for ensuring and demonstrating compliance with this Regulation, in accordance with Article 20; Amendment 338 Proposal for a regulation Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point e (e)  ensure that the high-risk AI system undergoes the relevant conformity assessment procedure, prior to its placing on the market or putting into service; (e)  ensure that the high-risk AI system undergoes the relevant conformity assessment procedure, prior to its placing on the market or putting into service, in accordance with Article 43; Amendment 339 Proposal for a regulation Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point e a (new) (e a)  draw up an EU declaration of conformity in accordance with Article 48; Amendment 340 Proposal for a regulation Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point e b (new) (e b)  affix the CE marking to the high-risk AI system to indicate conformity with this Regulation, in accordance with Article 49; Amendment 341 Proposal for a regulation Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point g (g)  take the necessary corrective actions, if the high-risk AI system is not in conformity with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title; (g)  take the necessary corrective actions as referred to in Article 21 and provide information in that regard; Amendment 342 Proposal for a regulation Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point h (h)  inform the national competent authorities of the Member States in which they made the AI system available or put it into service and, where applicable, the notified body of the non-compliance and of any corrective actions taken; deleted Amendment 343 Proposal for a regulation Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point i (i)  to affix the CE marking to their high-risk AI systems to indicate the conformity with this Regulation in accordance with Article 49; deleted Amendment 344 Proposal for a regulation Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point j (j)  upon request of a national competent authority, demonstrate the conformity of the high-risk AI system with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title. (j)  upon a reasoned request of a national supervisory authority, demonstrate the conformity of the high-risk AI system with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title. Amendment 345 Proposal for a regulation Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point j a (new) (j a)  ensure that the high-risk AI system complies with accessibility requirements. Amendment 346 Proposal for a regulation Article 17 – paragraph 1 – introductory part 1.  Providers of high-risk AI systems shall put a quality management system in place that ensures compliance with this Regulation. That system shall be documented in a systematic and orderly manner in the form of written policies, procedures and instructions, and shall include at least the following aspects: 1.  Providers of high-risk AI systems shall have a quality management system in place that ensures compliance with this Regulation. It shall be documented in a systematic and orderly manner in the form of written policies, procedures or instructions, and can be incorporated into an existing quality management system under Union sectoral legislative acts. It shall include at least the following aspects: Amendment 347 Proposal for a regulation Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point a (a)  a strategy for regulatory compliance, including compliance with conformity assessment procedures and procedures for the management of modifications to the high-risk AI system; deleted Amendment 348 Proposal for a regulation Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point e (e)  technical specifications, including standards, to be applied and, where the relevant harmonised standards are not applied in full, the means to be used to ensure that the high-risk AI system complies with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title; (e)  technical specifications, including standards, to be applied and, where the relevant harmonised standards are not applied in full, or do not cover all of the relevant requirements, the means to be used to ensure that the high-risk AI system complies with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title; Amendment 349 Proposal for a regulation Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point f (f)  systems and procedures for data management, including data collection, data analysis, data labelling, data storage, data filtration, data mining, data aggregation, data retention and any other operation regarding the data that is performed before and for the purposes of the placing on the market or putting into service of high-risk AI systems; (f)  systems and procedures for data management, including data acquisition data collection, data analysis, data labelling, data storage, data filtration, data mining, data aggregation, data retention and any other operation regarding the data that is performed before and for the purposes of the placing on the market or putting into service of high-risk AI systems; Amendment 350 Proposal for a regulation Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point j (j)  the handling of communication with national competent authorities, competent authorities, including sectoral ones, providing or supporting the access to data, notified bodies, other operators, customers or other interested parties; (j)  the handling of communication with relevant competent authorities, including sectoral ones; Amendment 351 Proposal for a regulation Article 17 – paragraph 2 2.  The implementation of aspects referred to in paragraph 1 shall be proportionate to the size of the provider’s organisation. 2.  The implementation of aspects referred to in paragraph 1 shall be proportionate to the size of the provider’s organisation. Providers shall in any event respect the degree of rigour and the level of protection required to ensure compliance of their AI systems with this Regulation. Amendment 352 Proposal for a regulation Article 18 – title Obligation to draw up technical documentation deleted Amendment 353 Proposal for a regulation Article 18 – paragraph 1 1.  Providers of high-risk AI systems shall draw up the technical documen­tation referred to in Article 11 in accordance with Annex IV. deleted Amendment 354 Proposal for a regulation Article 18 – paragraph 2 2.  Providers that are credit institutions regulated by Directive 2013/36/EU shall maintain the technical documentation as part of the documentation concerning internal governance, arrangements, processes and mechanisms pursuant to Article 74 of that Directive. deleted Amendment 355 Proposal for a regulation Article 19 Article 19 deleted Conformity assessment 1.  Providers of high-risk AI systems shall ensure that their systems undergo the relevant conformity assessment procedure in accordance with Article 43, prior to their placing on the market or putting into service. Where the compliance of the AI systems with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title has been demonstrated following that conformity assessment, the providers shall draw up an EU declaration of conformity in accordance with Article 48 and affix the CE marking of conformity in accordance with Article 49. 2.  For high-risk AI systems referred to in point 5(b) of Annex III that are placed on the market or put into service by providers that are credit institutions regulated by Directive 2013/36/EU, the conformity assessment shall be carried out as part of the procedure referred to in Articles 97 to101 of that Directive. Amendment 356 Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 1 1.  Providers of high-risk AI systems shall keep the logs automatically generated by their high-risk AI systems, to the extent such logs are under their control by virtue of a contractual arrangement with the user or otherwise by law. The logs shall be kept for a period that is appropriate in the light of the intended purpose of high-risk AI system and applicable legal obligations under Union or national law. 1.  Providers of high-risk AI systems shall keep the logs automatically generated by their high-risk AI systems, to the extent such logs are under their control. Without prejudice to applicable Union or national law, the logs shall be kept for a period of at least 6 months. The retention period shall be in accordance with industry standards and appropriate to the intended purpose of high-risk AI system. Amendment 357 Proposal for a regulation Article 21 – paragraph 1 Providers of high-risk AI systems which consider or have reason to consider that a high-risk AI system which they have placed on the market or put into service is not in conformity with this Regulation shall immediately take the necessary corrective actions to bring that system into conformity, to withdraw it or to recall it, as appropriate. They shall inform the distributors of the high-risk AI system in question and, where applicable, the authorised representative and importers accordingly. Providers of high-risk AI systems which consider or have reason to consider that a high-risk AI system which they have placed on the market or put into service is not in conformity with this Regulation shall immediately take the necessary corrective actions to bring that system into conformity, to withdraw it, to disable it or to recall it, as appropriate. In the cases referred to in the first paragraph, providers shall immediately inform: a.  the distributors; b.  the importers; c.  the national competent authorities of the Member States in which they made the AI system available or put it into service; and d.  where possible, the deployer. Amendment 358 Proposal for a regulation Article 21 – paragraph 1 a (new) The providers shall also inform the authorised representative, if one was appointed in accordance with Article 25, and the notified body if the high-risk AI system had to undergo a third-party conformity assessment in accordance with Article 43. Where applicable, they shall also investigate the causes in collaboration with the deployer. Amendment 359 Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 1 Where the high-risk AI system presents a risk within the meaning of Article 65(1) and that risk is known to the provider of the system, that provider shall immediately inform the national competent authorities of the Member States in which it made the system available and, where applicable, the notified body that issued a certificate for the high-risk AI system, in particular of the non-compliance and of any corrective actions taken. Where the high-risk AI system presents a risk within the meaning of Article 65(1) and the provider of the system becomes aware of that risk, that provider shall immediately inform the national supervisory authorities of the Member States in which it made the system available and, where applicable, the notified body that issued a certificate for the high-risk AI system, in particular the nature of the non-compliance and of any relevant corrective actions taken. Amendment 360 Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 1 a (new) In the cases referred to inthe first paragraph, providers of the high-risk AI system shall immediately inform: a)  the distributors; b)  the importers; c)  the national competent authorities of the Member States in which they made the AI system available or put it into service; and d)  where possible, the deployers. Amendment 361 Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 1 b (new) The providers shall also inform the authorised representative, if one was appointed in accordance with Article 25. Amendment 362 Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – title Cooperation with competent authorities Cooperation with competent authorities, the Office and the Commission Amendment 363 Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 1 Providers of high-risk AI systems shall, upon request by a national competent authority, provide that authority with all the information and documentation necessary to demonstrate the conformity of the high-risk AI system with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title, in an official Union language determined by the Member State concerned. Upon a reasoned request from a national competent authority, providers shall also give that authority access to the logs automatically generated by the high-risk AI system, to the extent such logs are under their control by virtue of a contractual arrangement with the user or otherwise by law. Providers and where applicable, deployers of high-risk AI systems shall, upon a reasoned request by a national competent authority or where applicable, by the AI Office or the Commission, provide them with all the information and documentation necessary to demonstrate the conformity of the high-risk AI system with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title, in an official Union language determined by the Member State concerned. Amendment 364 Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 1 a (new) Upon a reasoned request by a national competent authority or, where applicable, by the Commission, providers and, where applicable, deployers shall also give the requesting national competent authority or the Commission, as applicable, access to the logs automatically generated by the high-risk AI system, to the extent such logs are under their control. Amendment 365 Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 1 b (new) Any information obtained by a national competent authority or by the Commission pursuant to the provisions of this Article shall be considered a trade secret and be treated in compliance with the confidentiality obligations set out in Article 70. Amendment 366 Proposal for a regulation Article 25 – paragraph 1 1.  Prior to making their systems available on the Union market, where an importer cannot be identified, providers established outside the Union shall, by written mandate, appoint an authorised representative which is established in the Union. 1.  Prior to making their systems available on the Union market, providers established outside the Union shall, by written mandate, appoint an authorised representative which is established in the Union. Amendment 367 Proposal for a regulation Article 25 – paragraph 1 a (new) 1 a.  The authorised representative shall reside or be established in one of the Member States where the activities pursuant to Article 2, paragraphs 1(cb) are taking place. Amendment 368 Proposal for a regulation Article 25 – paragraph 1 b (new) 1 b.  The provider shall provide its authorised representative with the necessary powers and resources to comply with its tasks under this Regulation. Amendment 369 Proposal for a regulation Article 25 – paragraph 2 – introductory part 2.  The authorised representative shall perform the tasks specified in the mandate received from the provider. The mandate shall empower the authorised representative to carry out the following tasks: 2.  The authorised representative shall perform the tasks specified in the mandate received from the provider. It shall provide a copy of the mandate to the market surveillance authorities upon request, in one of the official languages of the institution of the Union determined by the national competent authority. For the purpose of this Regulation, the mandate shall empower the authorised representative to carry out the following tasks: Amendment 370 Proposal for a regulation Article 25 – paragraph 2 – point a (a)  keep a copy of the EU declaration of conformity and the technical documentation at the disposal of the national competent authorities and national authorities referred to in Article 63(7); (a)  ensure that the EU declaration of conformity and the technical documentation have been drawn up and that an appropriate conformity assessment procedure has been carried out by the provider; Amendment 371 Proposal for a regulation Article 25 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new) (a a)  keep at the disposal of the national competent authorities and national authorities referred to in Article 63(7), a copy of the EU declaration of conformity, the technical documentation and, if applicable, the certificate issued by the notified body; Amendment 372 Proposal for a regulation Article 25 – paragraph 2 – point b (b)  provide a national competent authority, upon a reasoned request, with all the information and documentation necessary to demonstrate the conformity of a high-risk AI system with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title, including access to the logs automatically generated by the high-risk AI system to the extent such logs are under the control of the provider by virtue of a contractual arrangement with the user or otherwise by law; (b)  provide a national competent authority, upon a reasoned request, with all the information and documentation necessary to demonstrate the conformity of a high-risk AI system with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title, including access to the logs automatically generated by the high-risk AI system to the extent such logs are under the control of the provider; Amendment 373 Proposal for a regulation Article 25 – paragraph 2 – point c (c)  cooperate with competent national authorities, upon a reasoned request, on any action the latter takes in relation to the high-risk AI system. (c)  cooperate with national supervisory authorities, upon a reasoned request, on any action the authority takes to reduce and mitigate the risks posed by the high-risk AI system; Amendment 374 Proposal for a regulation Article 25 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new) (c a)  where applicable, comply with the registration obligations referred in Article 51, or, if the registration is carried out by the provider itself, ensure that the information referred to in point 3 of Annex VIII is correct. Amendment 375 Proposal for a regulation Article 25 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a.  The authorised representative shall be mandated to be addressed, in addition to or instead of the provider, by, in particular, the national supervisory authority or the national competent authorities, on all issues related to ensuring compliance with this Regulation. Amendment 376 Proposal for a regulation Article 25 – paragraph 2 b (new) 2 b.  The authorised representative shall terminate the mandate if it considers or has reason to consider that the provider acts contrary to its obligations under this Regulation. In such a case, it shall also immediately inform the national supervisory authority of the Member State in which it is established, as well as, where applicable, the relevant notified body, about the termination of the mandate and the reasons thereof. Amendment 377 Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 1 – introductory part 1.  Before placing a high-risk AI system on the market, importers of such system shall ensure that: 1.  Before placing a high-risk AI system on the market, importers of such system shall ensure that such a system is in conformity with this Regulation by ensuring that: Amendment 378 Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 1 – point a (a)  the appropriate conformity assessment procedure has been carried out by the provider of that AI system (a)  the relevant conformity assessment procedure referred to in Article 43 has been carried out by the provider of that AI system Amendment 379 Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 1 – point b (b)  the provider has drawn up the technical documentation in accordance with Annex IV; (b)  the provider has drawn up the technical documentation in accordance with Article 11 and Annex IV; Amendment 380 Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new) (c a)  where applicable, the provider has appointed an authorised representative in accordance with Article 25(1). Amendment 381 Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 2 2.  Where an importer considers or has reason to consider that a high-risk AI system is not in conformity with this Regulation, it shall not place that system on the market until that AI system has been brought into conformity. Where the high-risk AI system presents a risk within the meaning of Article 65(1), the importer shall inform the provider of the AI system and the market surveillance authorities to that effect. 2.  Where an importer considers or has reason to consider that a high-risk AI system is not in conformity with this Regulation, or is counterfeit, or accompanied by falsified documentation it shall not place that system on the market until that AI system has been brought into conformity. Where the high-risk AI system presents a risk within the meaning of Article 65(1), the importer shall inform the provider of the AI system and the market surveillance authorities to that effect. Amendment 382 Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 3 3.  Importers shall indicate their name, registered trade name or registered trade mark, and the address at which they can be contacted on the high-risk AI system or, where that is not possible, on its packaging or its accompanying documentation, as applicable. 3.  Importers shall indicate their name, registered trade name or registered trade mark, and the address at which they can be contacted on the high-risk AI system and on its packaging or its accompanying documentation, where applicable. Amendment 383 Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 5 5.  Importers shall provide national competent authorities, upon a reasoned request, with all necessary information and documentation to demonstrate the conformity of a high-risk AI system with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title in a language which can be easily understood by that national competent authority, including access to the logs automatically generated by the high-risk AI system to the extent such logs are under the control of the provider by virtue of a contractual arrangement with the user or otherwise by law. They shall also cooperate with those authorities on any action national competent authority takes in relation to that system. 5.  Importers shall provide national competent authorities, upon a reasoned request, with all the necessary information and documentation to demonstrate the conformity of a high-risk AI system with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title in a language which can be easily understood by them, including access to the logs automatically generated by the high-risk AI system to the extent such logs are under the control of the provider in accordance with Article 20. Amendment 384 Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 5 a (new) 5 a.  Importers shall cooperate with national competent authorities on any action those authorities take to reduce and mitigate the risks posed by the high-risk AI system. Amendment 385 Proposal for a regulation Article 27 – paragraph 1 1.  Before making a high-risk AI system available on the market, distributors shall verify that the high-risk AI system bears the required CE conformity marking, that it is accompanied by the required documentation and instruction of use, and that the provider and the importer of the system, as applicable, have complied with the obligations set out in this Regulation. 1.  Before making a high-risk AI system available on the market, distributors shall verify that the high-risk AI system bears the required CE conformity marking, that it is accompanied by the required documentation and instruction of use, and that the provider and the importer of the system, as applicable, have complied with their obligations set out in this Regulation in Articles 16 and 26 respectively. Amendment 386 Proposal for a regulation Article 27 – paragraph 2 2.  Where a distributor considers or has reason to consider that a high-risk AI system is not in conformity with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title, it shall not make the high-risk AI system available on the market until that system has been brought into conformity with those requirements. Furthermore, where the system presents a risk within the meaning of Article 65(1), the distributor shall inform the provider or the importer of the system, as applicable, to that effect. 2.  Where a distributor considers or has reason to consider, on the basis of the information in its possession that a high-risk AI system is not in conformity with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title, it shall not make the high-risk AI system available on the market until that system has been brought into conformity with those requirements. Furthermore, where the system presents a risk within the meaning of Article 65(1), the distributor shall inform the provider or the importer of the system, the relevant national competent authority, as applicable, to that effect. Amendment 387 Proposal for a regulation Article 27 – paragraph 4 4.  A distributor that considers or has reason to consider that a high-risk AI system which it has made available on the market is not in conformity with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title shall take the corrective actions necessary to bring that system into conformity with those requirements, to withdraw it or recall it or shall ensure that the provider, the importer or any relevant operator, as appropriate, takes those corrective actions. Where the high-risk AI system presents a risk within the meaning of Article 65(1), the distributor shall immediately inform the national competent authorities of the Member States in which it has made the product available to that effect, giving details, in particular, of the non-compliance and of any corrective actions taken. 4.  A distributor that considers or has reason to consider, on the basis of the information in its possession, that a high-risk AI system which it has made available on the market is not in conformity with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title shall take the corrective actions necessary to bring that system into conformity with those requirements, to withdraw it or recall it or shall ensure that the provider, the importer or any relevant operator, as appropriate, takes those corrective actions. Where the high-risk AI system presents a risk within the meaning of Article 65(1), the distributor shall immediately inform the provider or importer of the system and the national competent authorities of the Member States in which it has made the product available to that effect, giving details, in particular, of the non-compliance and of any corrective actions taken. Amendment 388 Proposal for a regulation Article 27 – paragraph 5 5.  Upon a reasoned request from a national competent authority, distributors of high-risk AI systems shall provide that authority with all the information and documentation necessary to demonstrate the conformity of a high-risk system with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title. Distributors shall also cooperate with that national competent authority on any action taken by that authority. 5.  Upon a reasoned request from a national competent authority, distributors of the high-risk AI system shall provide that authority with all the information and documentation in their possession or available to them, in accordance with the obligations of distributors as outlined in paragraph 1, that are necessary to demonstrate the conformity of a high-risk system with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title. Amendment 389 Proposal for a regulation Article 27 – paragraph 5 a (new) 5 a.  Distributors shall cooperate with national competent authorities on any action those authorities take to reduce and mitigate the risks posed by the high-risk AI system. Amendment 390 Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – title Obligations of distributors, importers, users or any other third-party Responsibilities along the AI value chain of providers, distributors, importers, deployers or other third parties Amendment 391 Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 1 – introductory part 1.  Any distributor, importer, user or other third-party shall be considered a provider for the purposes of this Regulation and shall be subject to the obligations of the provider under Article 16, in any of the following circumstances: 1.  Any distributor, importer, deployer or other third-party shall be considered a provider of a high-risk AI system for the purposes of this Regulation and shall be subject to the obligations of the provider under Article 16, in any of the following circumstances: Amendment 392 Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 1 – point a (a)  they place on the market or put into service a high-risk AI system under their name or trademark; (a)  they put their name or trademarkt on a high-risk AI system already placed on the market or put into service; Amendment 393 Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 1 – point b (b)  they modify the intended purpose of a high-risk AI system already placed on the market or put into service; (b)  they make a substantial modification to a high-risk AI system that has already been placed on the market or has already been put into service and in a way that it remains a high-risk AI system in accordance with Article 6; Amendment 394 Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new) (b a)  they make a substantial modification to an AI system, including a general purpose AI system, which has not been classified as high-risk and has already been placed on the market or put into service in such manner that the AI system becomes a high risk AI system in accordance with Article 6 Amendment 395 Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 2 2.  Where the circumstances referred to in paragraph 1, point (b) or (c), occur, the provider that initially placed the high-risk AI system on the market or put it into service shall no longer be considered a provider for the purposes of this Regulation. 2.  Where the circumstances referred to in paragraph 1, point (a) to (ba) occur, the provider that initially placed the AI system on the market or put it into service shall no longer be considered a provider of that specific AI system for the purposes of this Regulation. This former provider shall provide the new provider with the technical documentation and all other relevant and reasonably expected information capabilities of the AI system, technical access or other assistance based on the generally acknowledged state of the art that are required for the fulfilment of the obligations set out in this Regulation. This paragraph shall also apply to providers of foundation models as defined in Article 3 when the foundation model is directly integrated in an high-risk AI system. Amendment 396 Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a.  The provider of a high risk AI system and the third party that supplies tools, services, components or processes that are used or integrated in the high risk AI system shall, by written agreement specify the information, capabilities, technical access, and or other assistance, based on the generally acknowledged state of the art, that the third party is required to provide in order to enable the provider of the high risk AI system to fully comply with the obligations under this Regulation. The Commission shall develop and recommend non-binding model contractual terms between providers of high-risk AI systems and third parties that supply tools, services, components or processes that are used or integrated in high-risk AI systems in order to assist both parties in drafting and negotiating contracts with balanced contractual rights and obligations, consistent with each party’s level of control. When developing non-binding model contractual terms, the Commission shall take into account possible contractual requirements applicable in specific sectors or business cases. The non-binding contractual terms shall be published and be available free of charge in an easily usable electronic format on the AI Office’s website. Amendment 397 Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 2 b (new) 2 b.  For the purposes of this Article, trade secrets shall be preserved and shall only be disclosed provided that all specific necessary measures pursuant to Directive (EU) 2016/943 are taken in advance to preserve their confidentiality, in particular with respect to third parties. Where necessary, appropriate technical and organizational arrangements can be agreed to protect intellectual property rights or trade secrets. Amendment 398 Proposal for a regulation Article 28 a (new) Article 28 a Unfair contractual terms unilaterally imposed on an SME or startup 1.  A contractual term concerning the supply of tools, services, components or processes that are used or integrated in a high risk AI system or the remedies for the breach or the termination of related obligations which has been unilaterally imposed by an enterprise on a SME or startup shall not be binding on the latter enterprise if it is unfair. 2.  A contractual term is not to be considered unfair where it arises from applicable Union law. 3.  A contractual term is unfair if it is of such a nature that it objectively impairs the ability of the party upon whom the term has been unilaterally imposed to protect its legitimate commercial interest in the information in question or its use grossly deviates from good commercial practice in the supply of tools, services, components or processes that are used or integrated in a high-risk AI system, contrary to good faith and fair dealing or creates a significant imbalance between the rights and the obligations of the parties in the contract. A contractual term is also unfair if it has the effect of shifting penalties referred to in Article 71 or associated litigation costs across parties to the contract, as referred to in Article 71(8). 4.  A contractual term is unfair for the purposes of this Article if its object or effect is to: (a)  exclude or limit the liability of the party that unilaterally imposed the term for intentional acts or gross negligence; (b)  exclude the remedies available to the party upon whom the term has been unilaterally imposed in the case of non-performance of contractual obligations or the liability of the party that unilaterally imposed the term in the case of a breach of those obligations; (c)  give the party that unilaterally imposed the term the exclusive right to determine whether the technical documentation, information supplied are in conformity with the contract or to interpret any term of the contract. 5.  A contractual term shall be considered to be unilaterally imposed within the meaning of this Article if it has been supplied by one contracting party and the other contracting party has not been able to influence its content despite an attempt to negotiate it. The contracting party that supplied a contractual term shall bears the burden of proving that that term has not been unilaterally imposed. 6.  Where the unfair contractual term is severable from the remaining terms of the contract, those remaining terms shall remain binding. The party that supplied the contested term shall not argue that the term is an unfair term. 7.  This Article shall apply to all new contracts entered into force after ... [date of entry into force of this Regulation]. Businesses shall review existing contractual obligations that are subject to this Regulation by …[three years after the date of entry into force of this Regulation]. 8.  Given the rapidity in which innovations occur in the markets, the list of unfair contractual terms within Article 28a shall be reviewed regularly by the Commission and be updated to new business practices if necessary. Amendment 399 Proposal for a regulation Article 28 b (new) Article 28 b Obligations of the provider of a foundation model 1.  A provider of a foundation model shall, prior to making it available on the market or putting it into service, ensure that it is compliant with the requirements set out in this Article, regardless of whether it is provided as a standalone model or embedded in an AI system or a product, or provided under free and open source licences, as a service, as well as other distribution channels. 2.  For the purpose of paragraph 1, the provider of a foundation model shall: (a)  demonstrate through appropriate design, testing and analysis the identification, the reduction and mitigation of reasonably foreseeable risks to health, safety, fundamental rights, the environment and democracy and the rule of law prior and throughout development with appropriate methods such as with the involvement of independent experts, as well as the documentation of remaining non-mitigable risks after development (b)  process and incorporate only datasets that are subject to appropriate data governance measures for foundation models, in particular measures to examine the suitability of the data sources and possible biases and appropriate mitigation (c)  design and develop the foundation model in order to achieve throughout its lifecycle appropriate levels of performance, predictability, interpretability, corrigibility, safety and cybersecurity assessed through appropriate methods such as model evaluation with the involvement of independent experts, documented analysis, and extensive testing during conceptualisation, design, and development; (d)  design and develop the foundation model, making use of applicable standards to reduce energy use, resource use and waste, as well as to increase energy efficiency, and the overall efficiency of the system, whithout prejudice to relevant existing Union and national law. This obligation shall not apply before the standards referred to in Article 40 are published. Foundation models shall be designed with capabilities enabling the measurement and logging of the consumption of energy and resources, and, where technically feasible, other environmental impact the deployment and use of the systems may have over their entire lifecycle; (e)  draw up extensive technical documentation and intelligible instructions for use, in order to enable the downstream providers to comply with their obligations pursuant to Articles 16 and 28(1);. (f)  establish a quality management system to ensure and document compliance with this Article, with the possibility to experiment in fulfilling this requirement, (g)  register that foundation model in the EU database referred to in Article 60, in accordance with the instructions outlined in Annex VIII point C. When fulfilling those requirements, the generally acknowledged state of the art shall be taken into account, including as reflected in relevant harmonised standards or common specifications, as well as the latest assessment and measurement methods, reflected in particular in benchmarking guidance and capabilities referred to in Article 58a; 3.  Providers of foundation models shall, for a period ending 10 years after their foundation models have been placed on the market or put into service, keep the technical documentation referred to in paragraph 2(e) at the disposal of the national competent authorities 4.  Providers of foundation models used in AI systems specifically intended to generate, with varying levels of autonomy, content such as complex text, images, audio, or video (“generative AI”) and providers who specialise a foundation model into a generative AI system, shall in addition a)  comply with the transparency obligations outlined in Article 52 (1), b)  train, and where applicable, design and develop the foundation model in such a way as to ensure adequate safeguards against the generation of content in breach of Union law in line with the generally-acknowledged state of the art, and without prejudice to fundamental rights, including the freedom of expression, c)  without prejudice to Union or national or Union legislation on copyright, document and make publicly available a sufficiently detailed summary of the use of training data protected under copyright law. Amendment 400 Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 1 1.  Users of high-risk AI systems shall use such systems in accordance with the instructions of use accompanying the systems, pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 5. 1.  Deployers of high-risk AI systems shall take appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure they use such systems in accordance with the instructions of use accompanying the systems, pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 5 of this Article. Amendment 401 Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 1 a (new) 1 a.  To the extent deployers exercise control over the high-risk AI system, they shall i)  implement human oversight according to the requirements laid down in this Regulation (ii)  ensure that the natural persons assigned to ensure human oversight of the high-risk AI systems are competent, properly qualified and trained, and have the necessary resources in order to ensure the effective supervision of the AI system in accordance with Article 14 (iii)  ensure that relevant and appropriate robustness and cybersecurity measures are regularly monitored for effectiveness and are regularly adjusted or updated. Amendment 402 Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 2 2.  The obligations in paragraph 1 are without prejudice to other user obligations under Union or national law and to the user’s discretion in organising its own resources and activities for the purpose of implementing the human oversight measures indicated by the provider. 2.  The obligations in paragraph 1 and 1a, are without prejudice to other deployer obligations under Union or national law and to the deployer’s discretion in organising its own resources and activities for the purpose of implementing the human oversight measures indicated by the provider. Amendment 403 Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 3 3.  Without prejudice to paragraph 1, to the extent the user exercises control over the input data, that user shall ensure that input data is relevant in view of the intended purpose of the high-risk AI system. 3.  Without prejudice to paragraph 1 and 1a, to the extent the deployer exercises control over the input data, that deployer shall ensure that input data is relevant and sufficiently representative in view of the intended purpose of the high-risk AI system. Amendment 404 Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 4 – introductory part 4.  Users shall monitor the operation of the high-risk AI system on the basis of the instructions of use. When they have reasons to consider that the use in accordance with the instructions of use may result in the AI system presenting a risk within the meaning of Article 65(1) they shall inform the provider or distributor and suspend the use of the system. They shall also inform the provider or distributor when they have identified any serious incident or any malfunctioning within the meaning of Article 62 and interrupt the use of the AI system. In case the user is not able to reach the provider, Article 62 shall apply mutatis mutandis. 4.  Deployers shall monitor the operation of the high-risk AI system on the basis of the instructions of use and when relevant, inform providers in accordance with Article 61. When they have reasons to consider that the use in accordance with the instructions of use may result in the AI system presenting a risk within the meaning of Article 65(1) they shall, without undue delay, inform the provider or distributor and relevant national supervisory authorities and suspend the use of the system. They shall also immediately inform first the provider, and then the importer or distributor and relevant national supervisory authorities when they have identified any serious incident or any malfunctioning within the meaning of Article 62 and interrupt the use of the AI system. If the deployer is not able to reach the provider, Article 62 shall apply mutatis mutandis. Amendment 405 Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 For users that are credit institutions regulated by Directive 2013/36/EU, the monitoring obligation set out in the first subparagraph shall be deemed to be fulfilled by complying with the rules on internal governance arrangements, processes and mechanisms pursuant to Article 74 of that Directive. For deployers that are credit institutions regulated by Directive 2013/36/EU, the monitoring obligation set out in the first subparagraph shall be deemed to be fulfilled by complying with the rules on internal governance arrangements, processes and mechanisms pursuant to Article 74 of that Directive. Amendment 406 Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 5 – introductory part 5.  Users of high-risk AI systems shall keep the logs automatically generated by that high-risk AI system, to the extent such logs are under their control. The logs shall be kept for a period that is appropriate in the light of the intended purpose of the high-risk AI system and applicable legal obligations under Union or national law. 5.  Deployers of high-risk AI systems shall keep the logs automatically generated by that high-risk AI system, to the extent that such logs are under their control and are required for ensuring and demonstrating compliance with this Regulation, for ex-post audits of any reasonably foreseeable malfunction, incidents or misuses of the system, or for ensuring and monitoring for the proper functioning of the system throughout its lifecycle. Without prejudice to applicable Union or national law, the logs shall be kept for a period of at least six months. The retention period shall be in accordance with industry standards and appropriate to the intended purpose of the high-risk AI system. Amendment 407 Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 Users that are credit institutions regulated by Directive 2013/36/EU shall maintain the logs as part of the documentation concerning internal governance arrangements, processes and mechanisms pursuant to Article 74 of that Directive. Deployers that are credit institutions regulated by Directive 2013/36/EU shall maintain the logs as part of the documentation concerning internal governance arrangements, processes and mechanisms pursuant to Article 74 of that Directive. Amendment 408 Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 5 a (new) 5 a.  Prior to putting into service or use a high-risk AI system at the workplace, deployers shall consult workers representatives with a view to reaching an agreement in accordance with Directive 2002/14/EC and inform the affected employees that they will be subject to the system. Amendment 409 Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 5 b (new) 5 b.  Deployers of high-risk AI systems that are public authorities or Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies or undertakings referred to in Article 51(1a)(b) shall comply with the registration obligations referred to in Article 51. Amendment 410 Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 6 6.  Users of high-risk AI systems shall use the information provided under Article 13 to comply with their obligation to carry out a data protection impact assessment under Article 35 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or Article 27 of Directive (EU) 2016/680, where applicable. 6.  Where applicable, deployers of high-risk AI systems shall use the information provided under Article 13 to comply with their obligation to carry out a data protection impact assessment under Article 35 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or Article 27 of Directive (EU) 2016/680, a summary of which shall be published, having regard to the specific use and the specific context in which the AI system is intended to operate. Deployers may revert in part to those data protection impact assessments for fulfilling some of the obligations set out in this article, insofar as the data protection impact assesment fulfill those obligations. Amendment 411 Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 6 a (new) 6 a.  Without prejudice to Article 52, deployers of high-risk AI systems referred to in Annex III, which make decisions or assist in making decisions related to natural persons, shall inform the natural persons that they are subject to the use of the high-risk AI system. This information shall include the intended purpose and the type of decisions it makes. The deployer shall also inform the natural person about its right to an explanation referred to in Article 68c. Amendment 412 Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 6 b (new) 6 b.  Deployers shall cooperate with the relevant national competent authorities on any action those authorities take in relation with the high-risk system in order to implement this Regulation. Amendment 413 Proposal for a regulation Article 29 a (new) Article 29 a Fundamental rights impact assessment for high-risk AI systems Prior to putting a high-risk AI system as defined in Article 6(2) into use, with the exception of AI systems intended to be used in area 2 of Annex III, deployers shall conduct an assessment of the systems’ impact in the specific context of use. This assessment shall include, at a minimum, the following elements: (a)  a clear outline of the intended purpose for which the system will be used; (b)  a clear outline of the intended geographic and temporal scope of the system’s use; (c)  categories of natural persons and groups likely to be affected by the use of the system; (d)  verification that the use of the system is compliant with relevant Union and national law on fundamental rights; (e)  the reasonably foreseeable impact on fundamental rights of putting the high-risk AI system into use; (f)  specific risks of harm likely to impact marginalised persons or vulnerable groups; (g)  the reasonably foreseeable adverse impact of the use of the system on the environment; (h)  a detailed plan as to how the harms and the negative impact on fundamental rights identified will be mitigated. (j)  the governance system the deployer will put in place, including human oversight, complaint-handling and redress. 2.  If a detailed plan to mitigate the risks outlined in the course of the assessment outlined in paragraph 1 cannot be identified, the deployer shall refrain from putting the high-risk AI system into use and inform the provider and the National supervisory authority without undue delay. National supervisory authorities, pursuant to Articles 65 and 67, shall take this information into account when investigating systems which present a risk at national level. 3.  The obligation outlined under paragraph 1 applies for the first use of the high-risk AI system. The deployer may, in similar cases, draw back on previously conducted fundamental rights impact assessment or existing assessment carried out by providers. If, during the use of the high-risk AI system, the deployer considers that the criteria listed in paragraph 1 are not longer met, it shall conduct a new fundamental rights impact assessment. 4.  In the course of the impact assessment, the deployer, with the exception of SMEs, shall shall notify national supervisory authority and relevant stakeholders and shall, to best extent possible, involve representatives of the persons or groups of persons that are likely to be affected by the high-risk AI system, as identified in paragraph 1, including but not limited to: equality bodies, consumer protection agencies, social partners and data protection agencies, with a view to receiving input into the impact assessment. The deployer shall allow a period of six weeks for bodies to respond. SMEs may voluntarily apply the provisions laid down in this paragraph. In the case referred to in Article 47(1), public authorities may be exempted from this obligations. 5.  The deployer that is a public authority or an undertaking referred to in Article 51(1a) (b) shall publish a summary of the results of the impact assessment as part of the registration of use pursuant to their obligation under Article 51(2). 6.  Where the deployer is already required to carry out a data protection impact assessment under Article 35 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or Article 27 of Directive (EU) 2016/680, the fundamental rights impact assessment referred to in paragraph 1 shall be conducted in conjunction with the data protection impact assessment. The data protection impact assessment shall be published as an addendum. Amendment 414 Proposal for a regulation Article 30 – paragraph 1 1.  Each Member State shall designate or establish a notifying authority responsible for setting up and carrying out the necessary procedures for the assessment, designation and notification of conformity assessment bodies and for their monitoring. 1.  Each Member State shall designate or establish a notifying authority responsible for setting up and carrying out the necessary procedures for the assessment, designation and notification of conformity assessment bodies and for their monitoring. Those procedures shall be developed in cooperation between the notifying authorities of all Member States. Amendment 415 Proposal for a regulation Article 30 – paragraph 7 7.  Notifying authorities shall have a sufficient number of competent personnel at their disposal for the proper performance of their tasks. 7.  Notifying authorities shall have a sufficient number of competent personnel at their disposal for the proper performance of their tasks. Where applicable, competent personnel shall have the necessary expertise, such as a degree in an appropriate legal field, in the supervision of fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Amendment 416 Proposal for a regulation Article 30 – paragraph 8 8.  Notifying authorities shall make sure that conformity assessments are carried out in a proportionate manner, avoiding unnecessary burdens for providers and that notified bodies perform their activities taking due account of the size of an undertaking, the sector in which it operates, its structure and the degree of complexity of the AI system in question. 8.  Notifying authorities shall make sure that conformity assessments are carried out in a proportionate and timely manner, avoiding unnecessary burdens for providers, and that notified bodies perform their activities taking due account of the size of an undertaking, the sector in which it operates, its structure and the degree of complexity of the AI system in question. Particular attention shall be paid to minimising administrative burdens and compliance costs for micro and small enterprises as defined in the Annex to Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC. Amendment 417 Proposal for a regulation Article 32 – paragraph 1 1.  Notifying authorities may notify only conformity assessment bodies which have satisfied the requirements laid down in Article 33. 1.  Notifying authorities shall notify only conformity assessment bodies which have satisfied the requirements laid down in Article 33. Amendment 418 Proposal for a regulation Article 32 – paragraph 2 2.  Notifying authorities shall notify the Commission and the other Member States using the electronic notification tool developed and managed by the Commission. 2.  Notifying authorities shall notify the Commission and the other Member States using the electronic notification tool developed and managed by the Commission of each conformity assessment body referred to in paragraph 1. Amendment 419 Proposal for a regulation Article 32 – paragraph 3 3.  The notification shall include full details of the conformity assessment activities, the conformity assessment module or modules and the artificial intelligence technologies concerned. 3.  The notification referred to in paragraph 2 shall include full details of the conformity assessment activities, the conformity assessment module or modules and the artificial intelligence technologies concerned, as well as the relevant attestation of competence. Amendment 420 Proposal for a regulation Article 32 – paragraph 4 4.  The conformity assessment body concerned may perform the activities of a notified body only where no objections are raised by the Commission or the other Member States within one month of a notification. 4.  The conformity assessment body concerned may perform the activities of a notified body only where no objections are raised by the Commission or the other Member States within two weeks of the validation of the notification where it includes an accreditation certificate referred to in Article 31(2), or within two months of the notification where it incudes documentary evidence referred to in Article 31(3. Amendment 421 Proposal for a regulation Article 32 – paragraph 4 a (new) 4 a.  Where objections are raised, the Commission shall without delay enter into consultation with the relevant Member States and the conformity assessment body. In view thereof, the Commission shall decide whether the authorisation is justified or not. The Commission shall address its decision to the Member State concerned and the relevant conformity assessment body. Amendment 422 Proposal for a regulation Article 32 – paragraph 4 b (new) 4 b.  Member States shall notify the Commission and the other Member States of conformity assessment bodies. Amendment 423 Proposal for a regulation Article 33 – paragraph 2 2.  Notified bodies shall satisfy the organisational, quality management, resources and process requirements that are necessary to fulfil their tasks. 2.  Notified bodies shall satisfy the organisational, quality management, resources and process requirements that are necessary to fulfil their tasks as well as the minimum cybersecurity requirements set out for public administration entities identified as operators of essential services pursuant to Directive (EU 2022/2555. Amendment 424 Proposal for a regulation Article 33 – paragraph 4 4.  Notified bodies shall be independent of the provider of a high-risk AI system in relation to which it performs conformity assessment activities. Notified bodies shall also be independent of any other operator having an economic interest in the high-risk AI system that is assessed, as well as of any competitors of the provider. 4.  Notified bodies shall be independent of the provider of a high-risk AI system in relation to which it performs conformity assessment activities. Notified bodies shall also be independent of any other operator having an economic interest in the high-risk AI system that is assessed, as well as of any competitors of the provider. This shall not preclude the use of assessed AI systems that are necessary for the operations of the conformity assessment body or the use of such systems for personal purposes. Amendment 425 Proposal for a regulation Article 33 – paragraph 4 a (new) 4 a.  A conformity assessment pursuant to paragraph 1 shall be performed by employees of notified bodies who have not provided any other other service related to the matter assessed than the conformity assessment to the provider of a high-risk AI system nor to any legal person connected to that provider in the 12 months’ period before the assessment and have committed to not providing them with such services in the 12 month period following the completion of the assessment. Amendment 426 Proposal for a regulation Article 33 – paragraph 6 6.  Notified bodies shall have documented procedures in place ensuring that their personnel, committees, subsidiaries, subcontractors and any associated body or personnel of external bodies respect the confidentiality of the information which comes into their possession during the performance of conformity assessment activities, except when disclosure is required by law. The staff of notified bodies shall be bound to observe professional secrecy with regard to all information obtained in carrying out their tasks under this Regulation, except in relation to the notifying authorities of the Member State in which their activities are carried out. 6.  Notified bodies shall have documented procedures in place ensuring that their personnel, committees, subsidiaries, subcontractors and any associated body or personnel of external bodies respect the confidentiality of the information which comes into their possession during the performance of conformity assessment activities, except when disclosure is required by law. The staff of notified bodies shall be bound to observe professional secrecy with regard to all information obtained in carrying out their tasks under this Regulation, except in relation to the notifying authorities of the Member State in which their activities are carried out. Any information and documentation obtained by notified bodies pursuant to the provisions of this Article shall be treated in compliance with the confidentiality obligations set out in Article 70. Amendment 427 Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 3 3.  Activities may be subcontracted or carried out by a subsidiary only with the agreement of the provider. 3.  Activities may be subcontracted or carried out by a subsidiary only with the agreement of the provider. Notified bodies shall make a list of their subsidiaries publicly available. Amendment 428 Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 4 4.  Notified bodies shall keep at the disposal of the notifying authority the relevant documents concerning the assessment of the qualifications of the subcontractor or the subsidiary and the work carried out by them under this Regulation. 4.  Notified bodies shall keep at the disposal of the notifying authority the relevant documents concerning the verification of the qualifications of the subcontractor or the subsidiary and the work carried out by them under this Regulation. Amendment 429 Proposal for a regulation Article 35 – title Identification numbers and lists of notified bodies designated under this Regulation Identification numbers and lists of notified bodies Amendment 430 Proposal for a regulation Article 36 – paragraph 1 1.  Where a notifying authority has suspicions or has been informed that a notified body no longer meets the requirements laid down in Article 33, or that it is failing to fulfil its obligations, that authority shall without delay investigate the matter with the utmost diligence. In that context, it shall inform the notified body concerned about the objections raised and give it the possibility to make its views known. If the notifying authority comes to the conclusion that the notified body investigation no longer meets the requirements laid down in Article 33 or that it is failing to fulfil its obligations, it shall restrict, suspend or withdraw the notification as appropriate, depending on the seriousness of the failure. It shall also immediately inform the Commission and the other Member States accordingly. 1.  Where a notifying authority has suspicions or has been informed that a notified body no longer meets the requirements laid down in Article 33, or that it is failing to fulfil its obligations, that authority shall without delay investigate the matter with the utmost diligence. In that context, it shall inform the notified body concerned about the objections raised and give it the possibility to make its views known. If the notifying authority comes to the conclusion that the notified body no longer meets the requirements laid down in Article 33 or that it is failing to fulfil its obligations, it shall restrict, suspend or withdraw the notification as appropriate, depending on the seriousness of the failure. It shall also immediately inform the Commission and the other Member States accordingly. Amendment 431 Proposal for a regulation Article 36 – paragraph 2 2.  In the event of restriction, suspension or withdrawal of notification, or where the notified body has ceased its activity, the notifying authority shall take appropriate steps to ensure that the files of that notified body are either taken over by another notified body or kept available for the responsible notifying authorities at their request. 2.  In the event of restriction, suspension or withdrawal of notification, or where the notified body has ceased its activity, the notifying authority shall take appropriate steps to ensure that the files of that notified body are either taken over by another notified body or kept available for the responsible notifying authorities, and market surveillance authority at their request. Amendment 432 Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 1 1.  The Commission shall, where necessary, investigate all cases where there are reasons to doubt whether a notified body complies with the requirements laid down in Article 33. 1.  The Commission shall, where necessary, investigate all cases where there are reasons to doubt the competence of a notified body or the continued fulfilment by a notified body of the applicable requirements and responsibilities. Amendment 433 Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 2 2.  The Notifying authority shall provide the Commission, on request, with all relevant information relating to the notification of the notified body concerned. 2.  The Notifying authority shall provide the Commission, on request, with all relevant information relating to the notification or the maintenance of the competence of the notified body concerned. Amendment 434 Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 3 3.  The Commission shall ensure that all confidential information obtained in the course of its investigations pursuant to this Article is treated confidentially. 3.  The Commission shall ensure that all sensitive information obtained in the course of its investigations pursuant to this Article is treated confidentially. Amendment 435 Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 4 4.  Where the Commission ascertains that a notified body does not meet or no longer meets the requirements laid down in Article 33, it shall adopt a reasoned decision requesting the notifying Member State to take the necessary corrective measures, including withdrawal of notification if necessary. That implementing act shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 74(2). 4.  Where the Commission ascertains that a notified body does not meet or no longer meets the requirements for its notification, it shall inform the notifying Member State accordingly and request it to take the necessary corrective measures, including suspension or withdrawal of the notification if necessary. Where the Member State fails to take the necessary corrective measures, the Commission may, by means of an implementing act, suspend, restrict or withdraw the designation. That implementing act shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 74(2). Amendment 436 Proposal for a regulation Article 38 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a.  The Commission shall provide for the exchange of knowledge and best practices between the Member States' national authorities responsible for notification policy. Amendment 437 Proposal for a regulation Article 40 – paragraph 1 High-risk AI systems which are in conformity with harmonised standards or parts thereof the references of which have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union shall be presumed to be in conformity with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title, to the extent those standards cover those requirements. High-risk AI systems and foundation models which are in conformity with harmonised standards or parts thereof the references of which have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union in accordance with Regulation (EU) 1025/2012 shall be presumed to be in conformity with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title or Article 28b, to the extent those standards cover those requirements. Amendment 438 Proposal for a regulation Article 40 – paragraph 1 a (new) The Commission shall issue standardisation requests covering all requirements of this Regulation, in accordance with Article 10 of Regulation EU (No)1025/2012 by... [two months after the date of entry into force of this Regulation]. When preparing standardisation request, the Commission shall consult the AI Office and the Advisory Forum; Amendment 439 Proposal for a regulation Article 40 – paragraph 1 b (new) When issuing a standardisation request to European standardisation organisations, the Commission shall specify that standards have to be consistent, including with the sectorial law listed in Annex II, and aimed at ensuring that AI systems or foundation models placed on the market or put into service in the Union meet the relevant requirements laid down in this Regulation; Amendment 440 Proposal for a regulation Article 40 – paragraph 1 c (new) The actors involved in the standardisation process shall take into account the general principles for trustworthy AI set out in Article 4(a), seek to promote investment and innovation in AI as well as competitiveness and growth of the Union market, and contribute to strengthening global cooperation on standardisation and taking into account existing international standards in the field of AI that are consistent with Union values, fundamental rights and interests, and ensure a balanced representation of interests and effective participation of all relevant stakeholders in accordance with Articles 5, 6, and 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 Amendment 441 Proposal for a regulation Article 41 – paragraph 1 1.  Where harmonised standards referred to in Article 40 do not exist or where the Commission considers that the relevant harmonised standards are insufficient or that there is a need to address specific safety or fundamental right concerns, the Commission may, by means of implementing acts, adopt common specifications in respect of the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 74(2). deleted Amendment 442 Proposal for a regulation Article 41 – paragraph 1 a (new) 1 a.  The Commission may, by means of implementing act adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 74(2) and after consulting the AI Office and the AI Advisory Forum, adopt common specifications in respect of the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title or Article 28b wherein all of the following conditions are fulfilled: (a)  there is no reference to harmonised standards already published in the Official Journal of the European Union related to the essential requirement(s), unless the harmonised standard in question is an existing standard that must be revised; (b)  the Commission has requested one or more European standardisation organisations to draft a harmonised standard for the essential requirement(s) set out in Chapter 2; (c)  the request referred to in point (b) has not been accepted by any of the European standardisation organisations; or there are undue delays in the establishment of an appropriate harmonised standard; or the standard provided does not satisfy the requirements of the relevant Union law, or does not comply with the request of the Commission. Amendment 443 Proposal for a regulation Article 41 – paragraph 1 b (new) 1 b.  Where the Commission considers there to be a need to address specific fundamental rights concerns, common specifications adopted by the Commission in accordance with paragraph 1a shall also address those specific fundamental rights concerns. Amendment 444 Proposal for a regulation Article 41 – paragraph 1 c (new) 1 c.  The Commission shall develop common specifications for the methodology to fulfil the reporting and documentation requirement on the consumption of energy and resources during development, training and deployment of the high risk AI system. Amendment 445 Proposal for a regulation Article 41 – paragraph 2 2.  The Commission, when preparing the common specifications referred to in paragraph 1, shall gather the views of relevant bodies or expert groups established under relevant sectorial Union law. 2.  The Commission shall, throughout the whole process of drafting the common specifications referred to in paragraphs 1a and 1b, regularly consult the AI Office and the Advisory Forum, the European standardisation organisations and bodies or expert groups established under relevant sectorial Union law as well as other relevant stakeholders. The Commission shall fulfil the objectives referred to in Article 40 (1c) and duly justify why it decided to resort to common specifications. Where the Commission intends to adopt common specifications pursuant to paragraph 1a of this Article, it shall also clearly identify the specific fundamental rights concern to be addressed. When adopting common specifications pursuant to paragraphs 1a and 1b of this Article, the Commission shall take into account the opinion issued by the AI Office referred to in Article 56e(b) of this Regulation. Where the Commission decides not to follow the opinion of the AI Office, it shall provide a reasoned explanation to the AI Office. Amendment 446 Proposal for a regulation Article 41 – paragraph 3 3.  High-risk AI systems which are in conformity with the common specifications referred to in paragraph 1 shall be presumed to be in conformity with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title, to the extent those common specifications cover those requirements. 3.  High-risk AI systems which are in conformity with the common specifications referred to in paragraph 1a and 1b shall be presumed to be in conformity with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title, to the extent those common specifications cover those requirements Amendment 447 Proposal for a regulation Article 41 – paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a.  Where a harmonised standard is adopted by a European standardisation organisation and proposed to the Commission for the publication of its reference in the Official Journal of the European Union, the Commission shall assess the harmonised standard in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012. When reference of a harmonised standard is published in the Official Journal of the European Union, the Commission shall repeal acts referred to in paragraph 1 and 1b, or parts thereof which cover the same requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title. Amendment 448 Proposal for a regulation Article 41 – paragraph 4 4.  Where providers do not comply with the common specifications referred to in paragraph 1, they shall duly justify that they have adopted technical solutions that are at least equivalent thereto. 4.  Where providers of high-risk AI systems do not comply with the common specifications referred to in paragraph 1, they shall duly justify that they have adopted technical solutions that meet the requirements referred to in Chapter II to a level at least equivalent thereto; Amendment 449 Proposal for a regulation Article 42 – paragraph 1 1.  Taking into account their intended purpose, high-risk AI systems that have been trained and tested on data concerning the specific geographical, behavioural and functional setting within which they are intended to be used shall be presumed to be in compliance with the requirement set out in Article 10(4). 1.  Taking into account their intended purpose, high-risk AI systems that have been trained and tested on data concerning the specific geographical, behavioural contextual and functional setting within which they are intended to be used shall be presumed to be in compliance with the respective requirements set out in Article 10(4). Amendment 450 Proposal for a regulation Article 43 – paragraph 1 – introductory part 1.  For high-risk AI systems listed in point 1 of Annex III, where, in demonstrating the compliance of a high-risk AI system with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title, the provider has applied harmonised standards referred to in Article 40, or, where applicable, common specifications referred to in Article 41, the provider shall follow one of the following procedures: 1.  For high-risk AI systems listed in point 1 of Annex III, where, in demonstrating the compliance of a high-risk AI system with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title, the provider has applied harmonised standards referred to in Article 40, or, where applicable, common specifications referred to in Article 41, the provider shall opt for one of the following procedures; Amendment 451 Proposal for a regulation Article 43 – paragraph 1 – point a (a)  the conformity assessment procedure based on internal control referred to in Annex VI; (a)  the conformity assessment procedure based on internal control referred to in Annex VI; or Amendment 452 Proposal for a regulation Article 43 – paragraph 1 – point b (b)  the conformity assessment procedure based on assessment of the quality management system and assessment of the technical documentation, with the involvement of a notified body, referred to in Annex VII. (b)  the conformity assessment procedure based on assessment of the quality management system and of the technical documentation, with the involvement of a notified body, referred to in Annex VII; Amendment 453 Proposal for a regulation Article 43 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 Where, in demonstrating the compliance of a high-risk AI system with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title, the provider has not applied or has applied only in part harmonised standards referred to in Article 40, or where such harmonised standards do not exist and common specifications referred to in Article 41 are not available, the provider shall follow the conformity assessment procedure set out in Annex VII. In demonstrating the compliance of a high-risk AI system with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title, the provider shall follow the conformity assessment procedure set out in Annex VII in the following cases: (a)  where harmonised standards referred to in Article 40, the reference number of which has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union, covering all relevant safety requirements for the AI system, do not exist and common specifications referred to in Article 41 are not available; (b)  where the technical specifications referred to in point (a) exist but the provider has not applied them or has applied them only in part; (c)  where one or more of the technical specifications referred to in point (a) has been published with a restriction and only on the part of the standard that was restricted; (d)  when the provider considers that the nature, design, construction or purpose of the AI system necessitate third party verification, regardless of its risk level. Amendment 454 Proposal for a regulation Article 43 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 For the purpose of the conformity assessment procedure referred to in Annex VII, the provider may choose any of the notified bodies. However, when the system is intended to be put into service by law enforcement, immigration or asylum authorities as well as EU institutions, bodies or agencies, the market surveillance authority referred to in Article 63(5) or (6), as applicable, shall act as a notified body. For the purpose of carrying out the conformity assessment procedure referred to in Annex VII, the provider may choose any of the notified bodies. However, when the system is intended to be put into service by law enforcement, immigration or asylum authorities as well as EU institutions, bodies or agencies, the market surveillance authority referred to in Article 63(5) or (6), as applicable, shall act as a notified body. Amendment 455 Proposal for a regulation Article 43 – paragraph 4 – introductory part 4.  High-risk AI systems shall undergo a new conformity assessment procedure whenever they are substantially modified, regardless of whether the modified system is intended to be further distributed or continues to be used by the current user. 4.  High-risk AI systems that have already been subject to a conformity assessment procedure shall undergo a new conformity assessment procedure whenever they are substantially modified, regardless of whether the modified system is intended to be further distributed or continues to be used by the current deployer; Amendment 456 Proposal for a regulation Article 43 – paragraph 4 a (new) 4 a.  The specific interests and needs of SMEs shall be taken into account when setting the fees for third-party conformity assessment under this Article, reducing those fees proportionately to their size and market share; Amendment 457 Proposal for a regulation Article 43 – paragraph 5 5.  The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 73 for the purpose of updating Annexes VI and Annex VII in order to introduce elements of the conformity assessment procedures that become necessary in light of technical progress. 5.  The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 73 for the purpose of updating Annexes VI and Annex VII in order to introduce elements of the conformity assessment procedures that become necessary in light of technical progress. When preparing such delegated acts, the Commission shall consult the AI Office and the stakeholders affected; Amendment 458 Proposal for a regulation Article 43 – paragraph 6 6.  The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts to amend paragraphs 1 and 2 in order to subject high-risk AI systems referred to in points 2 to 8 of Annex III to the conformity assessment procedure referred to in Annex VII or parts thereof. The Commission shall adopt such delegated acts taking into account the effectiveness of the conformity assessment procedure based on internal control referred to in Annex VI in preventing or minimizing the risks to health and safety and protection of fundamental rights posed by such systems as well as the availability of adequate capacities and resources among notified bodies. 6.  The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts to amend paragraphs 1 and 2 in order to subject high-risk AI systems referred to in points 2 to 8 of Annex III to the conformity assessment procedure referred to in Annex VII or parts thereof. The Commission shall adopt such delegated acts taking into account the effectiveness of the conformity assessment procedure based on internal control referred to in Annex VI in preventing or minimizing the risks to health and safety and protection of fundamental rights posed by such systems as well as the availability of adequate capacities and resources among notified bodies. When preparing such delegated acts, the Commission shall consult the AI Office and the stakeholders affected; Amendment 459 Proposal for a regulation Article 44 – paragraph 1 1.  Certificates issued by notified bodies in accordance with Annex VII shall be drawn-up in an official Union language determined by the Member State in which the notified body is established or in an official Union language otherwise acceptable to the notified body. 1.  Certificates issued by notified bodies in accordance with Annex VII shall be drawn-up in one or several official Union languages determined by the Member State in which the notified body is established or in one or several official Union languages otherwise acceptable to the notified body; Amendment 460 Proposal for a regulation Article 44 – paragraph 2 2.  Certificates shall be valid for the period they indicate, which shall not exceed five years. On application by the provider, the validity of a certificate may be extended for further periods, each not exceeding five years, based on a re-assessment in accordance with the applicable conformity assessment procedures. 2.  Certificates shall be valid for the period they indicate, which shall not exceed four years. On application by the provider, the validity of a certificate may be extended for further periods, each not exceeding four years, based on a re-assessment in accordance with the applicable conformity assessment procedures; Amendment 461 Proposal for a regulation Article 44 – paragraph 3 3.  Where a notified body finds that an AI system no longer meets the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title, it shall, taking account of the principle of proportionality, suspend or withdraw the certificate issued or impose any restrictions on it, unless compliance with those requirements is ensured by appropriate corrective action taken by the provider of the system within an appropriate deadline set by the notified body. The notified body shall give reasons for its decision. 3.  Where a notified body finds that an AI system no longer meets the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title, it shall suspend or withdraw the certificate issued or impose any restrictions on it, unless compliance with those requirements is ensured by appropriate corrective action taken by the provider of the system within an appropriate deadline set by the notified body. The notified body shall give reasons for its decision. Amendment 462 Proposal for a regulation Article 45 – paragraph 1 Member States shall ensure that an appeal procedure against decisions of the notified bodies is available to parties having a legitimate interest in that decision. Member States shall ensure that an appeal procedure against decisions of the notified bodies, including on issued conformity certificates is available to parties having a legitimate interest in that decision. Amendment 463 Proposal for a regulation Article 46 – paragraph 3 3.  Each notified body shall provide the other notified bodies carrying out similar conformity assessment activities covering the same artificial intelligence technologies with relevant information on issues relating to negative and, on request, positive conformity assessment results. 3.  Each notified body shall provide the other notified bodies carrying out similar conformity assessment activities with relevant information on issues relating to negative and, on request, positive conformity assessment results. Amendment 464 Proposal for a regulation Article 47 – paragraph 1 1.  By way of derogation from Article 43, any market surveillance authority may authorise the placing on the market or putting into service of specific high-risk AI systems within the territory of the Member State concerned, for exceptional reasons of public security or the protection of life and health of persons, environmental protection and the protection of key industrial and infrastructural assets. That authorisation shall be for a limited period of time, while the necessary conformity assessment procedures are being carried out, and shall terminate once those procedures have been completed. The completion of those procedures shall be undertaken without undue delay. 1.  By way of derogation from Article 43, any national supervisory authority may request a judicial authority to authorise the placing on the market or putting into service of specific high-risk AI systems within the territory of the Member State concerned, for exceptional reasons of the protection of life and health of persons, environmental protection and the protection of critical infrastructure. That authorisation shall be for a limited period of time, while the necessary conformity assessment procedures are being carried out, and shall terminate once those procedures have been completed. The completion of those procedures shall be undertaken without undue delay; Amendment 465 Proposal for a regulation Article 47 – paragraph 2 2.  The authorisation referred to in paragraph 1 shall be issued only if the market surveillance authority concludes that the high-risk AI system complies with the requirements of Chapter 2 of this Title. The market surveillance authority shall inform the Commission and the other Member States of any authorisation issued pursuant to paragraph 1. 2.  The authorisation referred to in paragraph 1 shall be issued only if the national supervisory authority and judicial authority conclude that the high-risk AI system complies with the requirements of Chapter 2 of this Title. The national supervisory authority shall inform the Commission, the AI office, and the other Member States of any request made and any subsequent authorisation issued pursuant to paragraph 1; Amendment 466 Proposal for a regulation Article 47 – paragraph 3 3.  Where, within 15 calendar days of receipt of the information referred to in paragraph 2, no objection has been raised by either a Member State or the Commission in respect of an authorisation issued by a market surveillance authority of a Member State in accordance with paragraph 1, that authorisation shall be deemed justified. 3.  Where, within 15 calendar days of receipt of the information referred to in paragraph 2, no objection has been raised by either a Member State or the Commission in respect to the request of the national supervisory authority for an authorisation issued by a national supervisory authority of a Member State in accordance with paragraph 1, that authorisation shall be deemed justified; Amendment 467 Proposal for a regulation Article 47 – paragraph 4 4.  Where, within 15 calendar days of receipt of the notification referred to in paragraph 2, objections are raised by a Member State against an authorisation issued by a market surveillance authority of another Member State, or where the Commission considers the authorisation to be contrary to Union law or the conclusion of the Member States regarding the compliance of the system as referred to in paragraph 2 to be unfounded, the Commission shall without delay enter into consultation with the relevant Member State; the operator(s) concerned shall be consulted and have the possibility to present their views. In view thereof, the Commission shall decide whether the authorisation is justified or not. The Commission shall address its decision to the Member State concerned and the relevant operator or operators. 4.  Where, within 15 calendar days of receipt of the notification referred to in paragraph 2, objections are raised by a Member State against a request issued by a national supervisory authority of another Member State, or where the Commission considers the authorisation to be contrary to Union law or the conclusion of the Member States regarding the compliance of the system as referred to in paragraph 2 to be unfounded, the Commission shall without delay enter into consultation with the relevant Member State and the AI Office; the operator(s) concerned shall be consulted and have the possibility to present their views. In view thereof, the Commission shall decide whether the authorisation is justified or not. The Commission shall address its decision to the Member State concerned and the relevant operator(s); Amendment 468 Proposal for a regulation Article 47 – paragraph 5 5.  If the authorisation is considered unjustified, this shall be withdrawn by the market surveillance authority of the Member State concerned. 5.  If the authorisation is considered unjustified, this shall be withdrawn by the national supervisory authority of the Member State concerned; Amendment 469 Proposal for a regulation Article 48 – paragraph 1 1.  The provider shall draw up a written EU declaration of conformity for each AI system and keep it at the disposal of the national competent authorities for 10 years after the AI system has been placed on the market or put into service. The EU declaration of conformity shall identify the AI system for which it has been drawn up. A copy of the EU declaration of conformity shall be given to the relevant national competent authorities upon request. 1.  The provider shall draw up a written machine readable, physical or electronic EU declaration of conformity for each high-risk AI system and keep it at the disposal of the national supervisory authority and the national competent authorities for 10 years after the AI high-risk system has been placed on the market or put into service. A copy of the EU declaration of conformity shall be submitted to the national supervisory authority and the relevant national competent authorities upon request; Amendment 470 Proposal for a regulation Article 48 – paragraph 2 2.  The EU declaration of conformity shall state that the high-risk AI system in question meets the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title. The EU declaration of conformity shall contain the information set out in Annex V and shall be translated into an official Union language or languages required by the Member State(s) in which the high-risk AI system is made available. 2.  The EU declaration of conformity shall state that the high-risk AI system in question meets the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title. The EU declaration of conformity shall contain the information set out in Annex V and shall be translated into an official Union language or languages required by the Member State(s) in which the high-risk AI system is placed on the market or made available; Amendment 471 Proposal for a regulation Article 48 – paragraph 3 3.  Where high-risk AI systems are subject to other Union harmonisation legislation which also requires an EU declaration of conformity, a single EU declaration of conformity shall be drawn up in respect of all Union legislations applicable to the high-risk AI system. The declaration shall contain all the information required for identification of the Union harmonisation legislation to which the declaration relates. 3.  Where high-risk AI systems are subject to other Union harmonisation legislation which also requires an EU declaration of conformity, a single EU declaration of conformity may be drawn up in respect of all Union legislations applicable to the high-risk AI system. The declaration shall contain all the information required for identification of the Union harmonisation legislation to which the declaration relates. Amendment 472 Proposal for a regulation Article 48 – paragraph 5 5.  The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 73 for the purpose of updating the content of the EU declaration of conformity set out in Annex V in order to introduce elements that become necessary in light of technical progress. 5.  After consulting the AI Office, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 73 for the purpose of updating the content of the EU declaration of conformity set out in Annex V in order to introduce elements that become necessary in light of technical progress; Amendment 473 Proposal for a regulation Article 49 – paragraph 1 1.  The CE marking shall be affixed visibly, legibly and indelibly for high-risk AI systems. Where that is not possible or not warranted on account of the nature of the high-risk AI system, it shall be affixed to the packaging or to the accompanying documentation, as appropriate. 1.  The physical CE marking shall be affixed visibly, legibly and indelibly for high-risk AI systems before the high-risk AI system is placed on the market Where that is not possible or not warranted on account of the nature of the high-risk AI system, it shall be affixed to the packaging or to the accompanying documentation, as appropriate. It may be followed by a pictogram or any other marking indicating a special risk of use; Amendment 474 Proposal for a regulation Article 49 – paragraph 1 a (new) 1 a.  For digital only high-risk AI systems, a digital CE marking shall be used, only if it can be easily accessed via the interface from which the AI system is accessed or via an easily accessible machine-readable code or other electronic means. Amendment 475 Proposal for a regulation Article 49 – paragraph 3 3.  Where applicable, the CE marking shall be followed by the identification number of the notified body responsible for the conformity assessment procedures set out in Article 43. The identification number shall also be indicated in any promotional material which mentions that the high-risk AI system fulfils the requirements for CE marking. 3.  Where applicable, the CE marking shall be followed by the identification number of the notified body responsible for the conformity assessment procedures set out in Article 43. The identification number of the notified body shall be affixed by the body itself or, under its instructions, by the provider’s authorised representative. The identification number shall also be indicated in any promotional material which mentions that the high-risk AI system fulfils the requirements for CE marking; Amendment 476 Proposal for a regulation Article 49 – paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a.  Where high-risk AI systems are subject to other Union law which also provides for the affixing of the CE marking, the CE marking shall indicate that the high-risk AI system also fulfil the requirements of that other law. Amendment 477 Proposal for a regulation Article 50 – paragraph 1 – introductory part The provider shall, for a period ending 10 years after the AI system has been placed on the market or put into service, keep at the disposal of the national competent authorities: The provider shall, for a period ending 10 years, after the AI system has been placed on the market or put into service keep at the disposal of the national supervisory authority and the national competent authorities: Amendment 478 Proposal for a regulation Article 51 – paragraph 1 Before placing on the market or putting into service a high-risk AI system referred to in Article 6(2), the provider or, where applicable, the authorised representative shall register that system in the EU database referred to in Article 60. Before placing on the market or putting into service a high-risk AI system referred to in Article 6(2) the provider or, where applicable, the authorised representative shall register that system in the EU database referred to in Article 60, in accordance with Article 60(2); Amendment 479 Proposal for a regulation Article 51 – paragraph 1 a (new) Before putting into service or using a high-risk AI system in accordance with Article 6(2), the following categories of deployers shall register the use of that AI system in the EU database referred to in Article 60: a)  deployers who are public authorities or Union institutions, bodies, offices or agencies or deployers acting on their behalf; b)  deployers who are undertakings designated as a gatekeeper under Regulation (EU) 2022/1925. Amendment 480 Proposal for a regulation Article 51 – paragraph 1 b (new) Deployers who do not fall under subparagraph 1a. shall be entitled to voluntarily register the use of a high-risk AI system referred to in Article 6(2) in the EU database referred to in Article 60. Amendment 481 Proposal for a regulation Article 51 – paragraph 1 c (new) An updated registration entry must be completed immediately following each substantial modification. Amendment 482 Proposal for a regulation Title IV TRANSPARENCY OBLIGATIONS FOR CERTAIN AI SYSTEMS TRANSPARENCY OBLIGATIONS Amendment 483 Proposal for a regulation Article 52 – title Transparency obligations for certain AI systems Transparency obligations Amendment 484 Proposal for a regulation Article 52 – paragraph 1 1.  Providers shall ensure that AI systems intended to interact with natural persons are designed and developed in such a way that natural persons are informed that they are interacting with an AI system, unless this is obvious from the circumstances and the context of use. This obligation shall not apply to AI systems authorised by law to detect, prevent, investigate and prosecute criminal offences, unless those systems are available for the public to report a criminal offence. 1.  Providers shall ensure that AI systems intended to interact with natural persons are designed and developed in such a way that the AI system, the provider itself or the user informs the natural person exposed to an AI system that they are interacting with an AI system in a timely, clear and intelligible manner, unless this is obvious from the circumstances and the context of use. Where appropriate and relevant, this information shall also include which functions are AI enabled, if there is human oversight, and who is responsible for the decision-making process, as well as the existing rights and processes that, according to Union and national law, allow natural persons or their representatives to object against the application of such systems to them and to seek judicial redress against decisions taken by or harm caused by AI systems, including their right to seek an explanation. This obligation shall not apply to AI systems authorised by law to detect, prevent, investigate and prosecute criminal offences, unless those systems are available for the public to report a criminal offence. Amendment 485 Proposal for a regulation Article 52 – paragraph 2 2.  Users of an emotion recognition system or a biometric categorisation system shall inform of the operation of the system the natural persons exposed thereto. This obligation shall not apply to AI systems used for biometric categorisation, which are permitted by law to detect, prevent and investigate criminal offences. 2.  Users of an emotion recognition system or a biometric categorisation system which is not prohibited pursuant to Article 5 shall inform in a timely, clear and intelligible manner of the operation of the system the natural persons exposed thereto and obtain their consent prior to the processing of their biometric and other personal data in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Regulation (EU) 2016/1725 and Directive (EU) 2016/280, as applicable. This obligation shall not apply to AI systems used for biometric categorisation, which are permitted by law to detect, prevent and investigate criminal offences. Amendment 486 Proposal for a regulation Article 52 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 3.  Users of an AI system that generates or manipulates image, audio or video content that appreciably resembles existing persons, objects, places or other entities or events and would falsely appear to a person to be authentic or truthful (‘deep fake’), shall disclose that the content has been artificially generated or manipulated. 3.  Users of an AI system that generates or manipulates text, audio or visual content that would falsely appear to be authentic or truthful and which features depictions of people appearing to say or do things they did not say or do, without their consent (‘deep fake’), shall disclose in an appropriate, timely, clear and visible manner that the content has been artificially generated or manipulated, as well as, whenever possible, the name of the natural or legal person that generated or manipulated it. Disclosure shall mean labelling the content in a way that informs that the content is inauthentic and that is clearly visible for the recipient of that content. To label the content, users shall take into account the generally acknowledged state of the art and relevant harmonised standards and specifications. Amendment 487 Proposal for a regulation Article 52 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 However, the first subparagraph shall not apply where the use is authorised by law to detect, prevent, investigate and prosecute criminal offences or it is necessary for the exercise of the right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom of the arts and sciences guaranteed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, and subject to appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of third parties. 3a.  Paragraph 3 shall not apply where the use of an AI system that generates or manipulates text, audio or visual content is authorized by law or if it is necessary for the exercise of the right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom of the arts and sciences guaranteed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, and subject to appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of third parties. Where the content forms part of an evidently creative, satirical, artistic or fictional cinematographic, video games visuals and analogous work or programme, transparency obligations set out in paragraph 3 are limited to disclosing of the existence of such generated or manipulated content in an appropriate clear and visible manner that does not hamper the display of the work and disclosing the applicable copyrights, where relevant. It shall also not prevent law enforcement authorities from using AI systems intended to detect deep fakes and prevent, investigate and prosecute criminal offences linked with their use Amendment 488 Proposal for a regulation Article 52 – paragraph 3 b (new) 3b.  The information referred to in paragraphs 1 to 3 shall be provided to the natural persons at the latest at the time of the first interaction or exposure. It shall be accessible to vulnerable persons, such as persons with disabilities or children, complete, where relevant and appropriate, with intervention or flagging procedures for the exposed natural person taking into account the generally acknowledged state of the art and relevant harmonised standards and common specifications. Amendment 489 Proposal for a regulation Article 53 – paragraph 1 1.  AI regulatory sandboxes established by one or more Member States competent authorities or the European Data Protection Supervisor shall provide a controlled environment that facilitates the development, testing and validation of innovative AI systems for a limited time before their placement on the market or putting into service pursuant to a specific plan. This shall take place under the direct supervision and guidance by the competent authorities with a view to ensuring compliance with the requirements of this Regulation and, where relevant, other Union and Member States legislation supervised within the sandbox. 1.  Member States shall establish at least one AI regulatory sandbox at national level, which shall be operational at the latest on the day of the entry into application of this Regulation This sandbox can also be established jointly with one or several other Member States; Amendment 490 Proposal for a regulation Article 53 – paragraph 1 a (new) 1 a.  Additional AI regulatory sandboxes at regional or local levels or jointly with other Member States may also be established; Amendment 491 Proposal for a regulation Article 53 – paragraph 1 b (new) 1 b.  The Commission and the European Data Protection Supervisor, on their own, jointly or in collaboration with one or more Member States may also establish AI regulatory sandboxes at Union level; Amendment 492 Proposal for a regulation Article 53 – paragraph 1 c (new) 1 c.  Establishing authorities shall allocate sufficient resources to comply with this Article effectively and in a timely manner; Amendment 493 Proposal for a regulation Article 53 – paragraph 1 d (new) 1 d.  AI regulatory sandboxes shall, in accordance with criteria set out in Article 53a, provide for a controlled environment that fosters innovation and facilitates the development, testing and validation of innovative AI systems for a limited time before their placement on the market or putting into service pursuant to a specific plan agreed between the prospective providers and the establishing authority; Amendment 494 Proposal for a regulation Article 53 – paragraph 1 e (new) 1 e.  The establishment of AI regulatory sandboxes shall aim to contribute to the following objectives: a)  for the competent authorities to provide guidance to AI systems prospective providers providers to achieve regulatory compliance with this Regulation or where relevant other applicable Union and Member States legislation; b)  for the prospective providers to allow and facilitate the testing and development of innovative solutions related to AI systems; c)  regulatory learning in a controlled environment. Amendment 495 Proposal for a regulation Article 53 – paragraph 1 f (new) 1 f.  Establishing authorities shall provide guidance and supervision within the sandbox with a view to identify risks, in particular to fundamental rights, democracy and rule of law, health and safety and the environment, test and demonstrate mitigation measures for identified risks, and their effectiveness and ensure compliance with the requirements of this Regulation and, where relevant, other Union and Member States legislation; Amendment 496 Proposal for a regulation Article 53 – paragraph 1 f (new) 1 g.  Establishing authorities shall provide sandbox prospective providers who develop high-risk AI systems with guidance and supervision on how to fulfil the requirements set out in this Regulation, so that the AI systems may exit the sandbox being in presumption of conformity with the specific requirements of this Regulation that were assessed within the sandbox. Insofar as the AI system complies with the requirements when exiting the sandbox, it shall be presumed to be in conformity with this regulation. In this regard, the exit reports created by the establishing authority shall be taken into account by market surveillance authorities or notified bodies, as applicable, in the context of conformity assessment procedures or market surveillance checks; Amendment 497 Proposal for a regulation Article 53 – paragraph 2 2.  Member States shall ensure that to the extent the innovative AI systems involve the processing of personal data or otherwise fall under the supervisory remit of other national authorities or competent authorities providing or supporting access to data, the national data protection authorities and those other national authorities are associated to the operation of the AI regulatory sandbox. 2.  Establishing authorities shall ensure that, to the extent the innovative AI systems involve the processing of personal data or otherwise fall under the supervisory remit of other national authorities or competent authorities providing or supporting access to personal data, the national data protection authorities, or in cases referred to in paragraph 1b the EDPS, and those other national authorities are associated to the operation of the AI regulatory sandbox and involved in the supervision of those aspects to the full extent of their respective tasks and powers; Amendment 498 Proposal for a regulation Article 53 – paragraph 3 3.  The AI regulatory sandboxes shall not affect the supervisory and corrective powers of the competent authorities. Any significant risks to health and safety and fundamental rights identified during the development and testing of such systems shall result in immediate mitigation and, failing that, in the suspension of the development and testing process until such mitigation takes place. 3.  The AI regulatory sandboxes shall not affect the supervisory and corrective powers of the competent authorities, including at regional or local level. Any significant risks to fundamental rights, democracy and rule of law, health and safety or the environment identified during the development and testing of such AI systems shall result in immediate and adequate mitigation. Competent authorities shall have the power to temporarily or permanently suspend the testing process, or participation in the sandbox if no effective mitigation is possible and inform the AI office of such decision; Amendment 499 Proposal for a regulation Article 53 – paragraph 4 4.  Participants in the AI regulatory sandbox shall remain liable under applicable Union and Member States liability legislation for any harm inflicted on third parties as a result from the experimentation taking place in the sandbox. 4.  Prospective providers in the AI regulatory sandbox shall remain liable under applicable Union and Member States liability legislation for any harm inflicted on third parties as a result of the experimentation taking place in the sandbox. However, provided that the prospective provider(s) respect the specific plan referred to in paragraph 1c and the terms and conditions for their participation and follow in good faith the guidance given by the establishing authorities, no administrative fines shall be imposed by the authorities for infringements of this Regulation; Amendment 500 Proposal for a regulation Article 53 – paragraph 5 5.  Member States’ competent authorities that have established AI regulatory sandboxes shall coordinate their activities and cooperate within the framework of the European Artificial Intelligence Board. They shall submit annual reports to the Board and the Commission on the results from the implementation of those scheme, including good practices, lessons learnt and recommendations on their setup and, where relevant, on the application of this Regulation and other Union legislation supervised within the sandbox. 5.  Establishing authorities shall coordinate their activities and cooperate within the framework of the AI office; Amendment 501 Proposal for a regulation Article 53 – paragraph 5 a (new) 5 a.  Establishing authorities shall inform the AI Office of the establishment of a sandbox and may ask for support and guidance. A list of planned and existing sandboxes shall be made publicly available by the AI office and kept up to date in order to encourage more interaction in the regulatory sandboxes and transnational cooperation; Amendment 502 Proposal for a regulation Article 53 – paragraph 5 b (new) 5 b.  Establishing authorities shall submit to the AI office and, unless the Commission is the sole establishing authority, to the Commission, annual reports, starting one year after the establishment of the sandbox and then every year until its termination and a final report. Those reports shall provide information on the progress and results of the implementation of those sandboxes, including best practices, incidents, lessons learnt and recommendations on their setup and, where relevant, on the application and possible revision of this Regulation and other Union law supervised within the sandbox. Those annual reports or abstracts thereof shall be made available to the public, online; Amendment 503 Proposal for a regulation Article 53 – paragraph 6 6.  The modalities and the conditions of the operation of the AI regulatory sandboxes, including the eligibility criteria and the procedure for the application, selection, participation and exiting from the sandbox, and the rights and obligations of the participants shall be set out in implementing acts. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 74(2). 6.  The Commission shall develop a single and dedicated interface containing all relevant information related to sandboxes, together with a single contact point at Union level to interact with the regulatory sandboxes and to allow stakeholders to raise enquiries with competent authorities, and to seek non-binding guidance on the conformity of innovative products, services, business models embedding AI technologies; The Commission shall proactively coordinate with national, regional and also local authorities, where relevant; Amendment 504 Proposal for a regulation Article 53 – paragraph 6 a (new) 6 a.  For the purpose of paragraph 1 and 1a, the Commission shall play a complementary role, enabling Member States to build on their expertise and, on the other hand, assisting and providing technical understanding and resources to those Member States that seek guidance on the set-up and running of these regulatory sandboxes; Amendment 505 Proposal for a regulation Article 53 a (new) Article 53 a Modalities and functioning of AI regulatory sandboxes 1.  In order to avoid fragmentation across the Union, the Commission, in consultation with the AI office, shall adopt a delegated act detailing the modalities for the establishment, development, implementation, functioning and supervision of the AI regulatory sandboxes, including the eligibility criteria and the procedure for the application, selection, participation and exiting from the sandbox, and the rights and obligations of the participants based on the provisions set out in this Article; 2.  The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 73, no later than 12 months following the entry into force of this Regulation and shall ensure that: a)  regulatory sandboxes are open to any applying prospective provider of an AI system who fulfils eligibility and selection criteria. The criteria for accessing to the regulatory sandbox are transparent and fair and establishing authorities inform applicants of their decision within 3 months of the application; b)  regulatory sandboxes allow broad and equal access and keep up with demand for participation; c)  access to the AI regulatory sandboxes is free of charge for SMEs and start-ups without prejudice to exceptional costs that establishing authorities may recover in a fair and proportionate manner; d)  regulatory sandboxes facilitate the involvement of other relevant actors within the AI ecosystem, such as notified bodies and standardisation organisations (SMEs, start-ups, enterprises, innovators, testing and experimentation facilities, research and experimentation labs and digital innovation hubs, centers of excellence, individual researchers), in order to allow and facilitate cooperation with the public and private sector; e)  they allow prospective providers to to fulfil, in a controlled environment, the conformity assessment obligations of this Regulation or the voluntary application of the codes of conduct referred to in Article 69; f)  procedures, processes and administrative requirements for application, selection, participation and exiting the sandbox are simple, easily intelligible, clearly communicated in order to facilitate the participation of SMEs and start-ups with limited legal and administrative capacities and are streamlined across the Union, in order to avoid fragmentation and that participation in a regulatory sandbox established by a Member State, by the Commission, or by the EDPS is mutually and uniformly recognised and carries the same legal effects across the Union; g)  participation in the AI regulatory sandbox is limited to a period that is appropriate to the complexity and scale of the project. h)  the sandboxes shall facilitate the development of tools and infrastructure for testing, benchmarking, assessing and explaining dimensions of AI systems relevant to sandboxes, such as accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity as well as minimisation of risks to fundamental rights, environment and the society at large 3.  Prospective providers in the sandboxes, in particular SMEs and start-ups, shall be facilitated access to pre-deployment services such as guidance on the implementation of this Regulation, to other value-adding services such as help with standardisation documents and certification and consultation, and to other Digital Single Market initiatives such as Testing & Experimentation Facilities, Digital Hubs, Centres of Excellence, and EU benchmarking capabilities; Amendment 506 Proposal for a regulation Article 54 – title Further processing of personal data for developing certain AI systems in the public interest in the AI regulatory sandbox Further processing of data for developing certain AI systems in the public interest in the AI regulatory sandbox Amendment 507 Proposal for a regulation Article 54 – paragraph 1 – introductory part 1.  In the AI regulatory sandbox personal data lawfully collected for other purposes shall be processed for the purposes of developing and testing certain innovative AI systems in the sandbox under the following conditions: 1.  In the AI regulatory sandbox personal data lawfully collected for other purposes may be processed solely for the purposes of developing and testing certain AI systems in the sandbox when all of the following conditions are met: Amendment 508 Proposal for a regulation Article 54 – paragraph 1 – point a – introductory part (a)  the innovative AI systems shall be developed for safeguarding substantial public interest in one or more of the following areas: (a)  AI systems shall be developed for safeguarding substantial public interest in one or more of the following areas: (ii)  public safety and public health, including disease detection, diagnosis prevention, control and treatment; (iii)  a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment, protection of biodiversity, pollution as well as climate change mitigation and adaptation; (iii a)  safety and resilience of transport systems, critical infrastructure and networks. Amendment 509 Proposal for a regulation Article 54 – paragraph 1 – point a – point i (i)  the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, including the safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to public security, under the control and responsibility of the competent authorities. The processing shall be based on Member State or Union law; deleted Amendment 510 Proposal for a regulation Article 54 – paragraph 1 – point c (c)  there are effective monitoring mechanisms to identify if any high risks to the fundamental rights of the data subjects may arise during the sandbox experimentation as well as response mechanism to promptly mitigate those risks and, where necessary, stop the processing; (c)  there are effective monitoring mechanisms to identify if any high risks to the rights and freedoms of the data subjects, as referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and in Article 35 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 may arise during the sandbox experimentation as well as response mechanism to promptly mitigate those risks and, where necessary, stop the processing; Amendment 511 Proposal for a regulation Article 54 – paragraph 1 – point d (d)  any personal data to be processed in the context of the sandbox are in a functionally separate, isolated and protected data processing environment under the control of the participants and only authorised persons have access to that data; (d)  any personal data to be processed in the context of the sandbox are in a functionally separate, isolated and protected data processing environment under the control of the prospective provider and only authorised persons have access to that those data; Amendment 512 Proposal for a regulation Article 54 – paragraph 1 – point f (f)  any processing of personal data in the context of the sandbox do not lead to measures or decisions affecting the data subjects; (f)  any processing of personal data in the context of the sandbox do not lead to measures or decisions affecting the data subjects nor affect the application of their rights laid down in Union law on the protection of personal data; Amendment 513 Proposal for a regulation Article 54 – paragraph 1 – point g (g)  any personal data processed in the context of the sandbox are deleted once the participation in the sandbox has terminated or the personal data has reached the end of its retention period; (g)  any personal data processed in the context of the sandbox are protected by means of appropriate technical and organisational measures and deleted once the participation in the sandbox has terminated or the personal data has reached the end of its retention period; Amendment 514 Proposal for a regulation Article 54 – paragraph 1 – point h (h)  the logs of the processing of personal data in the context of the sandbox are kept for the duration of the participation in the sandbox and 1 year after its termination, solely for the purpose of and only as long as necessary for fulfilling accountability and documentation obligations under this Article or other application Union or Member States legislation; (h)  the logs of the processing of personal data in the context of the sandbox are kept for the duration of the participation in the sandbox; Amendment 515 Proposal for a regulation Article 54 – paragraph 1 – point j (j)  a short summary of the AI project developed in the sandbox, its objectives and expected results published on the website of the competent authorities. (j)  a short summary of the AI system developed in the sandbox, its objectives, hypotheses, and expected results, published on the website of the competent authorities; Amendment 516 Proposal for a regulation Article 54 a (new) Article 54 a Promotion of AI research and development in support of socially and environmentally beneficial outcomes 1.  Member States shall promote research and development of AI solutions which support socially and environmentally beneficial outcomes, including but not limited to development of AI-based solutions to increase accessibility for persons with disabilities, tackle socio-economic inequalities, and meet sustainability and environmental targets, by: (a)  providing relevant projects with priority access to the AI regulatory sandboxes to the extent that they fulfil the eligibility conditions; (b)  earmarking public funding, including from relevant EU funds, for AI research and development in support of socially and environmentally beneficial outcomes; (c)  organising specific awareness raising activities about the application of this Regulation, the availability of and application procedures for dedicated funding, tailored to the needs of those projects; (d)  where appropriate, establishing accessible dedicated channels, including within the sandboxes, for communication with projects to provide guidance and respond to queries about the implementation of this Regulation. Member States shall support civil society and social stakeholders to lead or participate in such projects; Amendment 517 Proposal for a regulation Article 55 – title Measures for small-scale providers and users Measures for SMEs, start-ups and users Amendment 518 Proposal for a regulation Article 55 – paragraph 1 – point a (a)  provide small-scale providers and start-ups with priority access to the AI regulatory sandboxes to the extent that they fulfil the eligibility conditions; (a)  provide SMEs and start-ups, established in the Union, with priority access to the AI regulatory sandboxes, to the extent that they fulfil the eligibility conditions; Amendment 519 Proposal for a regulation Article 55 – paragraph 1 – point b (b)  organise specific awareness raising activities about the application of this Regulation tailored to the needs of the small-scale providers and users; (b)  organise specific awareness raising and enhanced digital skills development activities on the application of this Regulation tailored to the needs of SMEs, start-ups and users; Amendment 520 Proposal for a regulation Article 55 – paragraph 1 – point c (c)  where appropriate, establish a dedicated channel for communication with small-scale providers and user and other innovators to provide guidance and respond to queries about the implementation of this Regulation. (c)  utilise existing dedicated channels and where appropriate, establish new dedicated channels for communication with SMEs, start-ups, users and other innovators to provide guidance and respond to queries about the implementation of this Regulation; Amendment 521 Proposal for a regulation Article 55 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new) (ca)  foster the participation of SMEs and other relevant stakeholders in the standardisation development process. Amendment 522 Proposal for a regulation Article 55 – paragraph 2 2.  The specific interests and needs of the small-scale providers shall be taken into account when setting the fees for conformity assessment under Article 43, reducing those fees proportionately to their size and market size. 2.  The specific interests and needs of the SMEs, start-ups and users shall be taken into account when setting the fees for conformity assessment under Article 43, reducing those fees proportionately to development stage, their size, market size and market demand. The Commission shall regularly assess the certification and compliance costs for SMEs and start-ups, including through transparent consultations with SMEs, start-ups and users and shall work with Member States to lower such costs where possible. The Commission shall report on these findings to the European Parliament and to the Council as part of the report on the evaluation and review of this Regulation provided for in Article 84(2). Amendment 523 Proposal for a regulation Article 56 – SECTION 1 – Title Title SECTION 1: General provisions on the European Artificial Intelligence Office Amendment 524 Proposal for a regulation Article 56 – title Establishment of the European Artificial Intelligence Board Establishment of the European Artificial Intelligence Office Amendment 525 Proposal for a regulation Article 56 – paragraph 1 1.  A ‘European Artificial Intelligence Board’ (the ‘Board’) is established. 1.  The ‘European Artificial Intelligence Office’ (the ‘AI Office’) is hereby established. The AI Office shall be an independent body of the Union. It shall have legal personality. Amendment 526 Proposal for a regulation Article 56 – paragraph 2 – introductory part 2.  The Board shall provide advice and assistance to the Commission in order to: 2.  The AI Office shall have a secretariat, and shall be adequately funded and staffed for the purpose of performing its tasks pursuant to this Regulation. Amendment 527 Proposal for a regulation Article 56 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a.  The seat of the AI Office shall be in Brussels. Amendment 528 Proposal for a regulation Article 56 a (new) Article 56 a Structure The administrative and management structure of the AI Office shall comprise: (a)  a management board, including a chair (b)  a secretariat managed by an executive director; (c)  an advisory forum. Amendment 529 Proposal for a regulation Article 56 b (new) Article 56 b Tasks of the AI Office The AI Office shall carry out the following tasks: a)  support, advise, and cooperate with Member States, national supervisory authorities, the Commission and other Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies with regard to the implementation of this Regulation; b)  monitor and ensure the effective and consistent application of this Regulation, without prejudice to the tasks of national supervisory authorities; c)  contribute to the coordination among national supervisory authorities responsible for the application of this Regulation, d)  serve as a mediator in discussions about serious disagreements that may arise between competent authorities regarding the application of the Regulation e)  coordinate joint investigations, pursuant to Article 66a; f)  contribute to the effective cooperation with the competent authorities of third countries and with international organisations, g)  collect and share Member States’ expertise and best practices and to assist Member States national supervisory authorities and the Commission in developing the organizational and technical expertise required for the implementation of this Regulation, including by means of facilitating the creation and maintenance of a Union pool of experts h)  examine, on its own initiative or upon the request of its management board or the Commission, questions relating to the implementation of this Regulation and to issue opinions, recommendations or written contributions including with regard to: (i)  technical specifications or existing standards; (ii) the Commission’s guidelines (iii)  codes of conduct and the application thereof, in close cooperation with industry and other relevant stakeholders; (iv)  the possible revision of the Regulation, the preparation of the delegated acts, and possible alignments of this Regulation with the legal acts listed in Annex II; (v)  trends, such as European global competitiveness in artificial intelligence, the uptake of artificial intelligence in the Union, the development of digital skills, and emerging systemic threats relating to artificial intelligence (vi)  guidance on how this Regulation applies to the ever evolving typology of AI value chains, in particular on the resulting implications in terms of accountability of all the entities involved i)  issue: (i)  an annual report that includes an evaluation of the implementation of this Regulation, a review of serious incident reports as referred to in Article 62 and the functioning of the database referred to in Article 60 and (ii)  recommendations to the Commission on the categorisation of prohibited practices, high-risk AI systems referred to in Annex III, the codes of conduct referred to in Article 69, and the application of the general principles outlines in Article 4a j)  assist authorities in the establishment and development of regulatory sandboxes and to facilitate cooperation among regulatory sandboxes; k)  organise meetings with Union agencies and governance bodies whose tasks are related to artificial intelligence and the implementation of this Regulation; l)  organise quarterly consultations with the advisory forum, and, where appropriate, public consultations with other stakeholders, and to make the results of those consultations public on its website; m)  promote public awareness and understanding of the benefits, risks, safeguards and rights and obligations in relation to the use of AI systems; n)  facilitate the development of common criteria and a shared understanding among market operators and competent authorities of the relevant concepts provided for in this Regulation; o)  provide monitoring of foundation models and to organise a regular dialogue with the developers of foundation models with regard to their compliance as well as AI systems that make use of such AI models p)  provide interpretive guidance on how the AI Act applies to the ever evolving typology of AI value chains, and what the resulting implications in terms of accountability of all the entities involved will be under the different scenarios based on the generally acknowledged state of the art, including as reflected in relevant harmonized standards; q)  provide particular oversight and monitoring and institutionalize regular dialogue with the providers of foundation models about the compliance of foundation models as well as AI systems that make use of such AI models with Article 28b of this Regulation, and about industry best practices for self-governance. Any such meeting shall be open to national supervisory authorities, notified bodies and market surveillance authorities to attend and contribute r)  issue and periodically update guidelines on the thresholds that qualify training a foundation model as a large training run, record and monitor known instances of large training runs, and issue an annual report on the state of play in the development, proliferation, and use of foundation models alongside policy options to address risks and opportunities specific to foundation models. s)  promote AI literacy pursuant to Article 4b. Amendment 530 Proposal for a regulation Article 56 c (new) Article 56 c Accountability, independence, and transparency 1.  The AI Office shall: a.  be accountable to the European Parliament and to the Council in accordance with this Regulation; b.  act independently when carrying out its tasks or exercising its powers; and c.  ensure a high level of transparency concerning its activities and develop good administrative practices in that regard. Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 shall apply to documents held by the AI Office. Amendment 531 Proposal for a regulation Article - 57 a (new) – SECTION 2 – title Title SECTION 2: Management Board Amendment 532 Proposal for a regulation Article - 57 a (new) Article - 57 a Composition of the management board 1.  The management board shall be composed of the following members: (a)  one representative of each Member State’s national supervisory authority; (b)  one representative from the Commission; (c)  one representative from the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS); (d)  one representative from the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA); (e)  one representative from the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) Each representative of a national supervisory authority shall have one vote. The representatives of the Commission, the EDPS, the ENISA and the FRA shall not have voting rights. Each member shall have a substitute. The appointment of members and substitute members of the management board shall take into account the need to gender balance. The members of the management board and their substitute members shall be made public. 2.  The members and substitutes members of the management board shall not hold conflicting positions or commercial interests with regard to any topic related to the application of this Regulation. 3.  The rules for the meetings and voting of the management board and the appointment and removal of the Executive Director shall be laid down in the rules of procedure referred to in Article – 57 b, point (a). Amendment 533 Proposal for a regulation Article - 57 b (new) Article - 57 b Functions of the management board 1.  The management board shall have the following tasks: (a)  to make strategic decisions on the activities of the AI Office and to adopt its rules of procedure by a two-thirds majority of its members; (b)  to implement its rules of procedure; (c)  to adopt the AI Office’s single programming document as well as it annual public report and transmit both to the European Parliament, to the Council, to the Commission, and to the Court of Auditors; (d)  to adopt the AI Office’s budget; (e)  to appoint the executive director and, where relevant, to extend or curtail the executive director’s term of office or remove him or her from office; (f)  to decide on the establishment of the AI Office’s internal structures and, where necessary, the modification of those internal structures necessary for the fulfilment of the AI Office tasks; Amendment 534 Proposal for a regulation Article - 57 c (new) Article - 57 c Chair of the management board 1.  The management board shall elect a Chair and two deputy Chairs from among its voting members, by simple majority. 2.  The term of office of the Chair and of the deputy Chairs shall be four years. The terms of the Chair and of the deputy Chairs renewable once. Amendment 535 Proposal for a regulation Article 57 – SECTION 3 – title Structure of the Board Secretariat Amendment 536 Proposal for a regulation Article 57 – paragraph 1 1.  The Board shall be composed of the national supervisory authorities, who shall be represented by the head or equivalent high-level official of that authority, and the European Data Protection Supervisor. Other national authorities may be invited to the meetings, where the issues discussed are of relevance for them. 1.  The activities of the secretariat shall be managed by an executive director. The executive director shall be accountable to the management board. Without prejudice to the respective powers of the management board and the Union institutions, the executive director shall neither seek nor take instructions from any government or from any other body Amendment 537 Proposal for a regulation Article 57 – paragraph 2 2.  The Board shall adopt its rules of procedure by a simple majority of its members, following the consent of the Commission. The rules of procedure shall also contain the operational aspects related to the execution of the Board’s tasks as listed in Article 58. The Board may establish sub-groups as appropriate for the purpose of examining specific questions. 2.  The executive director shall attend hearings on any matter linked to the AI Office's activities and shall report on the performance of the executive director’s duties when invited to do so by the European Parliament or the Council. Amendment 538 Proposal for a regulation Article 57 – paragraph 3 3.  The Board shall be chaired by the Commission. The Commission shall convene the meetings and prepare the agenda in accordance with the tasks of the Board pursuant to this Regulation and with its rules of procedure. The Commission shall provide administrative and analytical support for the activities of the Board pursuant to this Regulation. 3.  The executive director shall represent the AI Office, including in international fora for cooperation with regard to artificial intelligence; Amendment 539 Proposal for a regulation Article 57 – paragraph 4 4.  The Board may invite external experts and observers to attend its meetings and may hold exchanges with interested third parties to inform its activities to an appropriate extent. To that end the Commission may facilitate exchanges between the Board and other Union bodies, offices, agencies and advisory groups. 4.  The secretariat shall provide the management board and the advisory forum with the analytical, administrative and logistical support necessary to fulfil the tasks of the AI Office, including by: (a)  Implementing the decisions, programmes and activities adopted by the management board; (b)  preparing each year the draft single programming document, the draft budget, the annual activity report on the AI Office, the draft opinions and the draft positions of the AI Office, and submit them to the management board (c)  Coordinating with international fora for cooperation on artificial intelligence; Amendment 540 Proposal for a regulation Article 58 – SECTION 4 – title Tasks of the Board Advisory Forum Amendment 541 Proposal for a regulation Article 58 – paragraph 1 – introductory part When providing advice and assistance to the Commission in the context of Article 56(2), the Board shall in particular: The advisory forum shall provide the AI Office with stakeholder input in matters relating to this Regulation, in particular with regard to the tasks set out in Article 56b point (l). Amendment 542 Proposal for a regulation Article 58 – paragraph 2 (new) The membership of the advisory forum shall represent a balanced selection of stakeholders, including industry, start-ups, SMEs, civil society, the social partners and academia. The membership of the advisory forum shall be balanced with regard to commercial and non-commercial interests and, within the category of commercial interests, with regards to SMEs and other undertakings. Amendment 543 Proposal for a regulation Article 58 – paragraph 3 (new) The management board shall appoint the members of the advisory forum in accordance with the selection procedure established in the AI Office’s rules of procedure and taking into account the need for transparency and in accordance with the criteria set out in paragraph 2; Amendment 544 Proposal for a regulation Article 58 – paragraph 4 (new) The term of office of the members of the advisory forum shall be two years, which may be extended by up to no more than four years. Amendment 545 Proposal for a regulation Article 58 – paragraph 5 (new) The European Committee for Standardization (CEN), the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC), and the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) shall be permanent members of the Advisory Forum. The Joint Research Centre shall be permanent member, without voting rights. Amendment 546 Proposal for a regulation Article 58 – paragraph 6 (new) The advisory forum shall draw up its rules of procedure. It shall elect two co-Chairs from among its members, in accordance with criteria set out in paragraph 2. The term of office of the co-Chairs shall be two years, renewable once. Amendment 547 Proposal for a regulation Article 58 – paragraph 7 (new) The advisory forum shall hold meetings at least four times a year. The advisory forum may invite experts and other stakeholders to its meetings. The executive director may attend, ex officio, the meetings of the advisory forum. Amendment 548 Proposal for a regulation Article 58 – paragraph 8 (new) In fulfilling its role as set out in paragraph 1, the advisory forum may prepare opinions, recommendations and written contributions. Amendment 549 Proposal for a regulation Article 58 – paragraph 9 (new) The advisory forum may establish standing or temporary subgroups as appropriate for the purpose of examining specific questions related to the objectives of this Regulation. Amendment 550 Proposal for a regulation Article 58 – paragraph 10 (new) The advisory forum shall prepare an annual report of its activities. That report shall be made publicly available. Amendment 551 Proposal for a regulation Article 58 a – SECTION 5 – title European Authorities on benchmarking Amendment 552 Proposal for a regulation Article 58 a (new) Article 58 a Benchmarking The European authorities on benchmarking referred to in Article 15 (1a) and the AI Office shall, in close cooperation with international partners, jointly develop cost-effective guidance and capabilities to measure and benchmark aspects of AI systems and AI components, and in particular of foundation models relevant to the compliance and enforcement of this Regulation based on the generally acknowledged state of the art, including as reflected in relevant harmonized standards. Amendment 553 Proposal for a regulation Article 59 – title Designation of national competent authorities Designation of national supervisory authorities Amendment 554 Proposal for a regulation Article 59 – paragraph 1 1.  National competent authorities shall be established or designated by each Member State for the purpose of ensuring the application and implementation of this Regulation. National competent authorities shall be organised so as to safeguard the objectivity and impartiality of their activities and tasks. 1.  Each Member State shall designate one national supervisory authority, which shall be organised so as to safeguard the objectivity and impartiality of its activities and tasks by ...[three months after the date of entry into force of this Regulation]. Amendment 555 Proposal for a regulation Article 59 – paragraph 2 2.  Each Member State shall designate a national supervisory authority among the national competent authorities. The national supervisory authority shall act as notifying authority and market surveillance authority unless a Member State has organisational and administrative reasons to designate more than one authority. 2.  The national supervisory authority shall ensure the application and implementation of this Regulation. With regard to high-risk AI systems, related to products to which legal acts listed in Annex II apply, the competent authorities designated under those legal acts shall continue to lead the administrative procedures. However, to the extent a case involves aspects exclusively covered by this Regulation, those competent authorities shall be bound by the measures related to those aspects issued by the national supervisory authority designated under this Regulation. The national supervisory authority shall act as market surveillance authority. Amendment 556 Proposal for a regulation Article 59 – paragraph 3 3.  Member States shall inform the Commission of their designation or designations and, where applicable, the reasons for designating more than one authority. 3.  Member States shall make publicly available and communicate to the AI Office and the Commission the national supervisory authority and information on how it can be contacted, by… [three months after the date of entry into force of this Regulation]. The national supervisory authority shall act as single point of contact for this Regulation and should be contactable though electronic communications means. Amendment 557 Proposal for a regulation Article 59 – paragraph 4 4.  Member States shall ensure that national competent authorities are provided with adequate financial and human resources to fulfil their tasks under this Regulation. In particular, national competent authorities shall have a sufficient number of personnel permanently available whose competences and expertise shall include an in-depth understanding of artificial intelligence technologies, data and data computing, fundamental rights, health and safety risks and knowledge of existing standards and legal requirements. 4.  Member States shall ensure that the national supervisory authority is provided with adequate technical, financial and human resources, and infrastructure to fulfil their tasks effectively under this Regulation. In particular, the national supervisory authority shall have a sufficient number of personnel permanently available whose competences and expertise shall include an in-depth understanding of artificial intelligence technologies, data and data computing, personal data protection, cybersecurity, competition law, fundamental rights, health and safety risks and knowledge of existing standards and legal requirements. Member States shall assess and, if deemed necessary, update competence and resource requirements referred to in this paragraph on an annual basis. Amendment 558 Proposal for a regulation Article 59 – paragraph 4 a (new) 4 a.  Each national supervisory authority shall exercise their powers and carry out their duties independently, impartially and without bias. The members of each national supervisory authority, in the performance of their tasks and exercise of their powers under this Regulation, shall neither seek nor take instructions from any body and shall refrain from any action incompatible with their duties. Amendment 559 Proposal for a regulation Article 59 – paragraph 4 b (new) 4 b.  National supervisory authorities shall satisfy the minimum cybersecurity requirements set out for public administration entities identified as operators of essential services pursuant to Directive (EU) 2022/2555. Amendment 560 Proposal for a regulation Article 59 – paragraph 4 c (new) 4 c.  When performing their tasks, the national supervisory authority shall act in compliance with the confidentiality obligations set out in Article 70. Amendment 561 Proposal for a regulation Article 59 – paragraph 5 5.  Member States shall report to the Commission on an annual basis on the status of the financial and human resources of the national competent authorities with an assessment of their adequacy. The Commission shall transmit that information to the Board for discussion and possible recommendations. 5.  Member States shall report to the Commission on an annual basis on the status of the financial and human resources of the national supervisory authority with an assessment of their adequacy. The Commission shall transmit that information to the AI Office for discussion and possible recommendations. Amendment 562 Proposal for a regulation Article 59 – paragraph 6 6.  The Commission shall facilitate the exchange of experience between national competent authorities. deleted Amendment 563 Proposal for a regulation Article 59 – paragraph 7 7.  National competent authorities may provide guidance and advice on the implementation of this Regulation, including to small-scale providers. Whenever national competent authorities intend to provide guidance and advice with regard to an AI system in areas covered by other Union legislation, the competent national authorities under that Union legislation shall be consulted, as appropriate. Member States may also establish one central contact point for communication with operators. 7.  National supervisory authorities may provide guidance and advice on the implementation of this Regulation, including to SMEs and start-ups, taking into account the AI Office or the Commission’s guidance and advice. Whenever the national supervisory authority intend to provide guidance and advice with regard to an AI system in areas covered by other Union law, the guidance shall be drafted in consultation with the competent national authorities under that Union law, as appropriate. Amendment 564 Proposal for a regulation Article 59 – paragraph 8 8.  When Union institutions, agencies and bodies fall within the scope of this Regulation, the European Data Protection Supervisor shall act as the competent authority for their supervision. 8.  When Union institutions, agencies and bodies fall within the scope of this Regulation, the European Data Protection Supervisor shall act as the competent authority for their supervision and coordination. Amendment 565 Proposal for a regulation Article 59 a (new) Article 59 a Cooperation mechanism between national supervisory authorities in cases involving two or more Member States 1.  Each national supervisory authority shall perform its tasks and powers conferred on in accordance with this Regulation on the territory of its own Member State. 2.  In the event of a case involving two or more national supervisory authorities, the national supervisory authority of the Member State where the infringement took place shall be considered the lead supervisory authority. 3.  In the cases referred to in paragraph 2, the relevant supervisory authorities shall cooperate and exchange all relevant information in due time. National supervisory authorities shall cooperate in order to reach a consensus. Amendment 566 Proposal for a regulation Title VII VII EU DATABASE FOR STAND-ALONE HIGH-RISK AI SYSTEMS EU DATABASE FOR HIGH-RISK AI SYSTEMS Amendment 567 Proposal for a regulation Article 60 – title EU database for stand-alone high-risk AI systems EU database for high-risk AI systems Amendment 568 Proposal for a regulation Article 60 – paragraph 1 1.  The Commission shall, in collaboration with the Member States, set up and maintain a EU database containing information referred to in paragraph 2 concerning high-risk AI systems referred to in Article 6(2) which are registered in accordance with Article 51. 1.  The Commission shall, in collaboration with the Member States, set up and maintain a public EU database containing information referred to in paragraphs 2 and 2a concerning high-risk AI systems referred to in Article 6 (2) which are registered in accordance with Article 51. Amendment 569 Proposal for a regulation Article 60 – paragraph 2 2.  The data listed in Annex VIII shall be entered into the EU database by the providers. The Commission shall provide them with technical and administrative support. 2.  The data listed in Annex VIII, Section A, shall be entered into the EU database by the providers. Amendment 570 Proposal for a regulation Article 60 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a.  The data listed in Annex VIII, Section B, shall be entered into the EU database by the deployers who are or who act on behalf of public authorities or Union institutions, bodies, offices or agencies and by deployers who are undertakings referred to in Article 51(1a) and (1b). Amendment 571 Proposal for a regulation Article 60 – paragraph 3 3.  Information contained in the EU database shall be accessible to the public. 3.  Information contained in the EU database shall be freely available to the public, user-friendly and accessible, easily navigable and machine-readable containing structured digital data based on a standardised protocol. Amendment 572 Proposal for a regulation Article 60 – paragraph 4 4.  The EU database shall contain personal data only insofar as necessary for collecting and processing information in accordance with this Regulation. That information shall include the names and contact details of natural persons who are responsible for registering the system and have the legal authority to represent the provider. 4.  The EU database shall contain personal data only insofar as necessary for collecting and processing information in accordance with this Regulation. That information shall include the names and contact details of natural persons who are responsible for registering the system and have the legal authority to represent the provider or the deployer which is a public authority or Union institution, body, office or agency or a deployer acting on their behalf or a deployer which is an undertaking referred to in Article 51(1a)(b) and (1b). Amendment 573 Proposal for a regulation Article 60 – paragraph 5 5.  The Commission shall be the controller of the EU database. It shall also ensure to providers adequate technical and administrative support. 5.  The Commission shall be the controller of the EU database. It shall also ensure to providers and deployers adequate technical and administrative support. The database shall comply with the accessibility requirements of Annex I to Directive (EU) 2019/882. Amendment 574 Proposal for a regulation Article 61 – paragraph 2 2.  The post-market monitoring system shall actively and systematically collect, document and analyse relevant data provided by users or collected through other sources on the performance of high-risk AI systems throughout their lifetime, and allow the provider to evaluate the continuous compliance of AI systems with the requirements set out in Title III, Chapter 2. 2.  The post-market monitoring system shall actively and systematically collect, document and analyse relevant data provided by deployers or collected through other sources on the performance of high-risk AI systems throughout their lifetime, and allow the provider to evaluate the continuous compliance of AI systems with the requirements set out in Title III, Chapter 2. Where relevant, post-market monitoring shall include an analysis of the interaction with other AI systems environment, including other devices and software taking into account the rules applicable from areas such as data protection, intellectual property rights and competition law. Amendment 575 Proposal for a regulation Article 61 – paragraph 3 3.  The post-market monitoring system shall be based on a post-market monitoring plan. The post-market monitoring plan shall be part of the technical documentation referred to in Annex IV. The Commission shall adopt an implementing act laying down detailed provisions establishing a template for the post-market monitoring plan and the list of elements to be included in the plan. 3.  The post-market monitoring system shall be based on a post-market monitoring plan. The post-market monitoring plan shall be part of the technical documentation referred to in Annex IV. The Commission shall adopt an implementing act laying down detailed provisions establishing a template for the post-market monitoring plan and the list of elements to be included in the plan by [twelve months after the date of entry into force of this Regulation]. Amendment 576 Proposal for a regulation Article 62 – title Reporting of serious incidents and of malfunctioning Reporting of serious incidents Amendment 577 Proposal for a regulation Article 62 – paragraph 1 – introductory part 1.  Providers of high-risk AI systems placed on the Union market shall report any serious incident or any malfunctioning of those systems which constitutes a breach of obligations under Union law intended to protect fundamental rights to the market surveillance authorities of the Member States where that incident or breach occurred. 1.  Providers and, where deployers have identified a serious incident, deployers of high-risk AI systems placed on the Union market shall report any serious incident of those systems which constitutes a breach of obligations under Union law intended to protect fundamental rights to the national supervisory authority of the Member States where that incident or breach occurred. Amendment 578 Proposal for a regulation Article 62 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 Such notification shall be made immediately after the provider has established a causal link between the AI system and the incident or malfunctioning or the reasonable likelihood of such a link, and, in any event, not later than 15 days after the providers becomes aware of the serious incident or of the malfunctioning. Such notification shall be made without undue delay after the provider, or, where applicable the deployer, has established a causal link between the AI system and the incident or the reasonable likelihood of such a link, and, in any event, not later than 72 hours after the provider or, where applicable, the deployer becomes aware of the serious incident. Amendment 579 Proposal for a regulation Article 62 – paragraph 1 a (new) 1 a.  Upon establishing a causal link between the AI system and the serious incident or the reasonable likelihood of such a link, providers shall take appropriate corrective actions pursuant to Article 21. Amendment 580 Proposal for a regulation Article 62 – paragraph 2 2.  Upon receiving a notification related to a breach of obligations under Union law intended to protect fundamental rights, the market surveillance authority shall inform the national public authorities or bodies referred to in Article 64(3). The Commission shall develop dedicated guidance to facilitate compliance with the obligations set out in paragraph 1. That guidance shall be issued 12 months after the entry into force of this Regulation, at the latest. 2.  Upon receiving a notification related to a breach of obligations under Union law intended to protect fundamental rights, the national supervisory authority shall inform the national public authorities or bodies referred to in Article 64(3). The Commission shall develop dedicated guidance to facilitate compliance with the obligations set out in paragraph 1. That guidance shall be issued by [the entry into force of this Regulation] and shall be assessed regularly. Amendment 581 Proposal for a regulation Article 62 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a.  The national supervisory authority shall take appropriate measures within 7 days from the date it received the notification referred to in paragraph 1. Where the infringement takes place or is likely to take place in other Member States, the national supervisory authority shall notify the AI Office and the relevant national supervisory authorities of these Member States. Amendment 582 Proposal for a regulation Article 62 – paragraph 3 3.  For high-risk AI systems referred to in point 5(b) of Annex III which are placed on the market or put into service by providers that are credit institutions regulated by Directive 2013/36/EU and for high-risk AI systems which are safety components of devices, or are themselves devices, covered by Regulation (EU) 2017/745 and Regulation (EU) 2017/746, the notification of serious incidents or malfunctioning shall be limited to those that that constitute a breach of obligations under Union law intended to protect fundamental rights. 3.  For high-risk AI systems referred to in Annex III that are placed on the market or put into service by providers that are subject to Union legislative instruments laying down reporting obligations equivalent to those set out in this Regulation, the notification of serious incidents constituting a breach of fundamental rights under Union law shall be transferred to the national supervisory authority. Amendment 583 Proposal for a regulation Article 62 – paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a.  National supervisory authorities shall on an annual basis notify the AI Office of the serious incidents reported to them in accordance with this Article. Amendment 584 Proposal for a regulation Article 63 – paragraph 1 – introductory part 1.  Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 shall apply to AI systems covered by this Regulation. However, for the purpose of the effective enforcement of this Regulation: 1.  Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 shall apply to AI systems and foundation models covered by this Regulation. However, for the purpose of the effective enforcement of this Regulation: Amendment 585 Proposal for a regulation Article 63 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new) (b a)  the national supervisory authorities shall act as market surveillance authorities under this Regulation and have the same powers and obligations as market surveillance authorities under Regulation (EU) 2019/1020. Amendment 586 Proposal for a regulation Article 63 – paragraph 2 2.  The national supervisory authority shall report to the Commission on a regular basis the outcomes of relevant market surveillance activities. The national supervisory authority shall report, without delay, to the Commission and relevant national competition authorities any information identified in the course of market surveillance activities that may be of potential interest for the application of Union law on competition rules. 2.  The national supervisory authority shall report to the Commission and the AI Office annually the outcomes of relevant market surveillance activities. The national supervisory authority shall report, without delay, to the Commission and relevant national competition authorities any information identified in the course of market surveillance activities that may be of potential interest for the application of Union law on competition rules. Amendment 587 Proposal for a regulation Article 63 – paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a.  For the purpose of ensuring the effective enforcement of this Regulation, national supervisory authorities may: (a)  carry out unannounced on-site and remote inspections of high-risk AI systems; (b)  acquire samples related to high-risk AI systems, including through remote inspections, to reverse-engineer the AI systems and to acquire evidence to identify non-compliance. Amendment 588 Proposal for a regulation Article 63 – paragraph 5 5.  For AI systems listed in point 1(a) in so far as the systems are used for law enforcement purposes, points 6 and 7 of Annex III, Member States shall designate as market surveillance authorities for the purposes of this Regulation either the competent data protection supervisory authorities under Directive (EU) 2016/680, or Regulation 2016/679 or the national competent authorities supervising the activities of the law enforcement, immigration or asylum authorities putting into service or using those systems. 5.  For AI systems that are used for law enforcement purposes, Member States shall designate as market surveillance authorities for the purposes of this Regulation the competent data protection supervisory authorities under Directive (EU) 2016/680. Amendment 589 Proposal for a regulation Article 63 – paragraph 7 7.  Member States shall facilitate the coordination between market surveillance authorities designated under this Regulation and other relevant national authorities or bodies which supervise the application of Union harmonisation legislation listed in Annex II or other Union legislation that might be relevant for the high-risk AI systems referred to in Annex III. 7.  National supervisory authorities designated under this Regulation shall coordinate with other relevant national authorities or bodies which supervise the application of Union harmonisation law listed in Annex II or other Union law that might be relevant for the high-risk AI systems referred to in Annex III. Amendment 590 Proposal for a regulation Article 64 – paragraph 1 1.  Access to data and documentation in the context of their activities, the market surveillance authorities shall be granted full access to the training, validation and testing datasets used by the provider, including through application programming interfaces (‘API’) or other appropriate technical means and tools enabling remote access. 1.  In the context of their activities, and upon their reasoned request the national supervisory authority shall be granted full access to the training, validation and testing datasets used by the provider, or, where relevant, the deployer, that are relevant and strictly necessary for the purpose of its request through appropriate technical means and tools. Amendment 591 Proposal for a regulation Article 64 – paragraph 2 2.  Where necessary to assess the conformity of the high-risk AI system with the requirements set out in Title III, Chapter 2 and upon a reasoned request, the market surveillance authorities shall be granted access to the source code of the AI system. 2.  Where necessary to assess the conformity of the high-risk AI system with the requirements set out in Title III, Chapter 2, after all other reasonable ways to verify conformity including paragraph 1 have been exhausted and have proven to be insufficient, and upon a reasoned request, the national supervisory authority shall be granted access to the training and trained models of the AI system, including its relevant model parameters. All information in line with Article 70 obtained shall be treated as confidential information and shall be subject to existing Union law on the protection of intellectual property and trade secrets and shall be deleted upon the completion of the investigation for which the information was requested. Amendment 592 Proposal for a regulation Article 64 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a.  Paragraphs 1 and 2 are without prejudice to the procedural rights of the concerned operator in accordance with Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1020. Amendment 593 Proposal for a regulation Article 64 – paragraph 3 3.  National public authorities or bodies which supervise or enforce the respect of obligations under Union law protecting fundamental rights in relation to the use of high-risk AI systems referred to in Annex III shall have the power to request and access any documentation created or maintained under this Regulation when access to that documentation is necessary for the fulfilment of the competences under their mandate within the limits of their jurisdiction. The relevant public authority or body shall inform the market surveillance authority of the Member State concerned of any such request. 3.  National public authorities or bodies which supervise or enforce the respect of obligations under Union law protecting fundamental rights in relation to the use of high-risk AI systems referred to in Annex III shall have the power to request and access any documentation created or maintained under this Regulation when access to that documentation is necessary for the fulfilment of the competences under their mandate within the limits of their jurisdiction. The relevant public authority or body shall inform the national supervisory authority of the Member State concerned of any such request. Amendment 594 Proposal for a regulation Article 64 – paragraph 4 4.  By 3 months after the entering into force of this Regulation, each Member State shall identify the public authorities or bodies referred to in paragraph 3 and make a list publicly available on the website of the national supervisory authority. Member States shall notify the list to the Commission and all other Member States and keep the list up to date. 4.  By 3 months after the entering into force of this Regulation, each Member State shall identify the public authorities or bodies referred to in paragraph 3 and make a list publicly available on the website of the national supervisory authority. National supervisory authorities shall notify the list to the Commission, the AI Office, and all other national supervisory authorities and keep the list up to date. The Commission shall publish in a dedicated website the list of all the competent authorities designated by the Member States in accordance with this Article. Amendment 595 Proposal for a regulation Article 64 – paragraph 5 5.  Where the documentation referred to in paragraph 3 is insufficient to ascertain whether a breach of obligations under Union law intended to protect fundamental rights has occurred, the public authority or body referred to paragraph 3 may make a reasoned request to the market surveillance authority to organise testing of the high-risk AI system through technical means. The market surveillance authority shall organise the testing with the close involvement of the requesting public authority or body within reasonable time following the request. 5.  Where the documentation referred to in paragraph 3 is insufficient to ascertain whether a breach of obligations under Union law intended to protect fundamental rights has occurred, the public authority or body referred to in paragraph 3 may make a reasoned request to the national supervisory authority, to organise testing of the high-risk AI system through technical means. The national supervisory authority shall organise the testing with the close involvement of the requesting public authority or body within reasonable time following the request. Amendment 596 Proposal for a regulation Article 65 – paragraph 1 1.  AI systems presenting a risk shall be understood as a product presenting a risk defined in Article 3, point 19 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 insofar as risks to the health or safety or to the protection of fundamental rights of persons are concerned. 1.  AI systems presenting a risk shall be understood as an AI system having the potential to affect adversely health and safety, fundamental rights of persons in general, including in the workplace, protection of consumers, the environment, public security, or democracy or the rule of law and other public interests, that are protected by the applicable Union harmonisation law, to a degree which goes beyond that considered reasonable and acceptable in relation to its intended purpose or under the normal or reasonably foreseeable conditions of use of the system are concerned, including the duration of use and, where applicable, its putting into service, installation and maintenance requirements. Amendment 597 Proposal for a regulation Article 65 – paragraph 2 – introductory part 2.  Where the market surveillance authority of a Member State has sufficient reasons to consider that an AI system presents a risk as referred to in paragraph 1, they shall carry out an evaluation of the AI system concerned in respect of its compliance with all the requirements and obligations laid down in this Regulation. When risks to the protection of fundamental rights are present, the market surveillance authority shall also inform the relevant national public authorities or bodies referred to in Article 64(3). The relevant operators shall cooperate as necessary with the market surveillance authorities and the other national public authorities or bodies referred to in Article 64(3). 2.  Where the national supervisory authority of a Member State has sufficient reasons to consider that an AI system presents a risk as referred to in paragraph 1, it shall carry out an evaluation of the AI system concerned in respect of its compliance with all the requirements and obligations laid down in this Regulation. When risks to fundamental rights are present, the national supervisory authority shall also immediately inform and fully cooperate with the relevant national public authorities or bodies referred to in Article 64(3); Where there is sufficient reason to consider that that an AI system exploits the vulnerabilities of vulnerable groups or violates their rights intentionally or unintentionally, the national supervisory authority shall have the duty to investigate the design goals, data inputs, model selection, implementation and outcomes of the AI system . The relevant operators shall cooperate as necessary with the national supervisory authority and the other national public authorities or bodies referred to in Article 64(3); Amendment 598 Proposal for a regulation Article 65 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 Where, in the course of that evaluation, the market surveillance authority finds that the AI system does not comply with the requirements and obligations laid down in this Regulation, it shall without delay require the relevant operator to take all appropriate corrective actions to bring the AI system into compliance, to withdraw the AI system from the market, or to recall it within a reasonable period, commensurate with the nature of the risk, as it may prescribe. Where, in the course of that evaluation, the national supervisory authority or, where relevant, the national public authority referred to in Article 64(3) finds that the AI system does not comply with the requirements and obligations laid down in this Regulation, it shall without delay require the relevant operator to take all appropriate corrective actions to bring the AI system into compliance, to withdraw the AI system from the market, or to recall it within a reasonable period, commensurate with the nature of the risk, as it may prescribe and in any event no later than fifteen working days or as provided for in the relevant Union harmonisation law as applicable Amendment 599 Proposal for a regulation Article 65 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 The market surveillance authority shall inform the relevant notified body accordingly. Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 shall apply to the measures referred to in the second subparagraph. The national supervisory authority shall inform the relevant notified body accordingly. Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 shall apply to the measures referred to in the second subparagraph. Amendment 600 Proposal for a regulation Article 65 – paragraph 3 3.  Where the market surveillance authority considers that non-compliance is not restricted to its national territory, it shall inform the Commission and the other Member States of the results of the evaluation and of the actions which it has required the operator to take. 3.  Where the national supervisory authority considers that non-compliance is not restricted to its national territory, it shall inform the Commission, the AI Office and the national supervisory authority of the other Member States without undue delay of the results of the evaluation and of the actions which it has required the operator to take. Amendment 601 Proposal for a regulation Article 65 – paragraph 5 5.  Where the operator of an AI system does not take adequate corrective action within the period referred to in paragraph 2, the market surveillance authority shall take all appropriate provisional measures to prohibit or restrict the AI system's being made available on its national market, to withdraw the product from that market or to recall it. That authority shall inform the Commission and the other Member States, without delay, of those measures. 5.  Where the operator of an AI system does not take adequate corrective action within the period referred to in paragraph 2, the national supervisory authority shall take all appropriate provisional measures to prohibit or restrict the AI system's being made available on its national market or put into service, to withdraw the AI system from that market or to recall it. That authority shall immediately inform the Commission, the AI Office and the national supervisory authority of the other Member States of those measures. Amendment 602 Proposal for a regulation Article 65 – paragraph 6 – introductory part 6.  The information referred to in paragraph 5 shall include all available details, in particular the data necessary for the identification of the non-compliant AI system, the origin of the AI system, the nature of the non-compliance alleged and the risk involved, the nature and duration of the national measures taken and the arguments put forward by the relevant operator. In particular, the market surveillance authorities shall indicate whether the non-compliance is due to one or more of the following: 6.  The information referred to in paragraph 5 shall include all available details, in particular the data necessary for the identification of the non-compliant AI system, the origin of the AI system and the supply chain, the nature of the non-compliance alleged and the risk involved, the nature and duration of the national measures taken and the arguments put forward by the relevant operator. In particular, the national supervisory authority shall indicate whether the non-compliance is due to one or more of the following: Amendment 603 Proposal for a regulation Article 65 – paragraph 6 – point a (a)  a failure of the AI system to meet requirements set out in Title III, Chapter 2; (a)  a failure of the high-risk AI system to meet requirements set out this Regulation; Amendment 604 Proposal for a regulation Article 65 – paragraph 6 – point b a (new) (b a)  non-compliance with the prohibition of the artificial intelligence practices referred to in Article 5; Amendment 605 Proposal for a regulation Article 65 – paragraph 6 – point b b (new) (b b)  non-compliance with provisions set out in Article 52. Amendment 606 Proposal for a regulation Article 65 – paragraph 7 7.  The market surveillance authorities of the Member States other than the market surveillance authority of the Member State initiating the procedure shall without delay inform the Commission and the other Member States of any measures adopted and of any additional information at their disposal relating to the non-compliance of the AI system concerned, and, in the event of disagreement with the notified national measure, of their objections. 7.  The national supervisory authorities of the Member States other than the national supervisory authority of the Member State initiating the procedure shall without delay inform the Commission, the AI Office and the other Member States of any measures adopted and of any additional information at their disposal relating to the non-compliance of the AI system concerned, and, in the event of disagreement with the notified national measure, of their objections. Amendment 607 Proposal for a regulation Article 65 – paragraph 8 8.  Where, within three months of receipt of the information referred to in paragraph 5, no objection has been raised by either a Member State or the Commission in respect of a provisional measure taken by a Member State, that measure shall be deemed justified. This is without prejudice to the procedural rights of the concerned operator in accordance with Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1020. 8.  Where, within three months of receipt of the information referred to in paragraph 5, no objection has been raised by either a national supervisory authority of a Member State or the Commission in respect of a provisional measure taken by a national supervisory authority of another Member State, that measure shall be deemed justified. This is without prejudice to the procedural rights of the concerned operator in accordance with Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1020. The period referred to in the first sentence of this paragraph shall be reduced to thirty days in the event of non-compliance with the prohibition of the artificial intelligence practices referred to in Article 5. Amendment 608 Proposal for a regulation Article 65 – paragraph 9 9.  The market surveillance authorities of all Member States shall ensure that appropriate restrictive measures are taken in respect of the product concerned, such as withdrawal of the product from their market, without delay. 9.  The national supervisory authorities of all Member States shall ensure that appropriate restrictive measures are taken in respect of the AI system concerned, such as withdrawal of the AI system from their market, without delay. Amendment 609 Proposal for a regulation Article 65 – paragraph 9 a (new) 9 a.  National supervisory authorities shall annually report to the AI Office about the use of prohibited practices that occurred during that year and about the measures taken to eliminate or mitigate the risks in accordance with this Article. Amendment 610 Proposal for a regulation Article 66 – paragraph 1 1.  Where, within three months of receipt of the notification referred to in Article 65(5), objections are raised by a Member State against a measure taken by another Member State, or where the Commission considers the measure to be contrary to Union law, the Commission shall without delay enter into consultation with the relevant Member State and operator or operators and shall evaluate the national measure. On the basis of the results of that evaluation, the Commission shall decide whether the national measure is justified or not within 9 months from the notification referred to in Article 65(5) and notify such decision to the Member State concerned. 1.  Where, within three months of receipt of the notification referred to in Article 65(5), or 30 days in the case of non-compliance with the prohibition of the artificial intelligence practices referred to in Article 5, objections are raised by the national supervisory authority of a Member State against a measure taken by another national supervisory authority, or where the Commission considers the measure to be contrary to Union law, the Commission shall without delay enter into consultation with the national supervisory authority of the relevant Member State and operator or operators and shall evaluate the national measure. On the basis of the results of that evaluation, the Commission shall decide whether the national measure is justified or not within three months, or 60 days in the case of non-compliance with the prohibition of the artificial intelligence practices referred to in Article 5, starting from the notification referred to in Article 65(5) and notify such decision to the national supervisory authority of the Member State concerned. The Commission shall also inform all other national supervisory authorities of such decision. Amendment 611 Proposal for a regulation Article 66 – paragraph 2 2.  If the national measure is considered justified, all Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the non-compliant AI system is withdrawn from their market, and shall inform the Commission accordingly. If the national measure is considered unjustified, the Member State concerned shall withdraw the measure. 2.  If the national measure is considered justified, all national supervisory authorities designated under this Regulation shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the non-compliant AI system is withdrawn from their market without delay, and shall inform the Commission and the AI Office accordingly. If the national measure is considered unjustified, the national supervisory authority of the Member State concerned shall withdraw the measure. Amendment 612 Proposal for a regulation Article 66 a (new) Article 66 a Joint investigations Where a national supervisory authority has reasons to suspect that the infringement by a provider or a deployer of a high-risk AI system or foundation model to this Regulation amount to a widespread infringement with a Union dimension, or affects or is likely affect at least 45 million individuals, in more than one Member State, that national supervisory authority shall inform the AI Office and may request the national supervisory authorities of the Member States where such infringement took place to start a joint investigation. The AI Office shall provide central coordination to the joint investigation. Investigation powers shall remain within the competence of the national supervisory authorities. Amendment 613 Proposal for a regulation Article 67 – paragraph 1 1.  Where, having performed an evaluation under Article 65, the market surveillance authority of a Member State finds that although an AI system is in compliance with this Regulation, it presents a risk to the health or safety of persons, to the compliance with obligations under Union or national law intended to protect fundamental rights or to other aspects of public interest protection, it shall require the relevant operator to take all appropriate measures to ensure that the AI system concerned, when placed on the market or put into service, no longer presents that risk, to withdraw the AI system from the market or to recall it within a reasonable period, commensurate with the nature of the risk, as it may prescribe. 1.  Where, having performed an evaluation under Article 65, in full cooperation with the relevant national public authority referred to in Article 64(3), the national supervisory authority of a Member State finds that although an AI system is in compliance with this Regulation, it presents a serious risk to the health or safety of persons, to the compliance with obligations under Union or national law intended to protect fundamental rights, or the environment or the democracy and rule of law or to other aspects of public interest protection , it shall require the relevant operator to take all appropriate measures to ensure that the AI system concerned, when placed on the market or put into service, no longer presents that risk. Amendment 614 Proposal for a regulation Article 67 – paragraph 2 2.  The provider or other relevant operators shall ensure that corrective action is taken in respect of all the AI systems concerned that they have made available on the market throughout the Union within the timeline prescribed by the market surveillance authority of the Member State referred to in paragraph 1. 2.  The provider or other relevant operators shall ensure that corrective action is taken in respect of all the AI systems concerned that they have made available on the market throughout the Union within the timeline prescribed by the national supervisory authority authority of the Member State referred to in paragraph 1. Amendment 615 Proposal for a regulation Article 67 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a.  Where the provider or other relevant operators fail to take corrective action as referred to in paragraph 2 and the AI system continues to present a risk as referred to in paragraph 1, the national supervisory authority may require the relevant operator to withdraw the AI system from the market or to recall it within a reasonable period, commensurate with the nature of the risk. Amendment 616 Proposal for a regulation Article 67 – paragraph 3 3.  The Member State shall immediately inform the Commission and the other Member States. That information shall include all available details, in particular the data necessary for the identification of the AI system concerned, the origin and the supply chain of the AI system, the nature of the risk involved and the nature and duration of the national measures taken. 3.  The national supervisory authority shall immediately inform the Commission, the AI Office and the other national supervisory authorities. That information shall include all available details, in particular the data necessary for the identification of the AI system concerned, the origin and the supply chain of the AI system, the nature of the risk involved and the nature and duration of the national measures taken. Amendment 617 Proposal for a regulation Article 67 – paragraph 4 4.  The Commission shall without delay enter into consultation with the Member States and the relevant operator and shall evaluate the national measures taken. On the basis of the results of that evaluation, the Commission shall decide whether the measure is justified or not and, where necessary, propose appropriate measures. 4.  The Commission, in consultation with the AI Office shall without delay enter into consultation with the national supervisory authorities concerned and the relevant operator and shall evaluate the national measures taken. On the basis of the results of that evaluation, the AI Office shall decide whether the measure is justified or not and, where necessary, propose appropriate measures. Amendment 618 Proposal for a regulation Article 67 – paragraph 5 5.  The Commission shall address its decision to the Member States. 5.  The Commission, in consultation with the AI Office shall immediately communicate its decision to the national supervisory authorities of the Member States concerned and to the relevant operators. It shall also inform the decision to all other national supervisory authorities. Amendment 619 Proposal for a regulation Article 67 – paragraph 5 a (new) 5 a.  The Commission shall adopt guidelines to help national competent authorities to identify and rectify, where necessary, similar problems arising in other AI systems. Amendment 620 Proposal for a regulation Article 68 – paragraph 1 – introductory part 1.  Where the market surveillance authority of a Member State makes one of the following findings, it shall require the relevant provider to put an end to the non-compliance concerned: 1.  Where the national supervisory authority of a Member State makes one of the following findings, it shall require the relevant provider to put an end to the non-compliance concerned: Amendment 621 Proposal for a regulation Article 68 – paragraph 1 – point a (a)  the conformity marking has been affixed in violation of Article 49; (a)  the CE marking has been affixed in violation of Article 49; Amendment 622 Proposal for a regulation Article 68 – paragraph 1 – point b (b)  the conformity marking has not been affixed; (b)  the CE marking has not been affixed; Amendment 623 Proposal for a regulation Article 68 – paragraph 1 – point e a (new) (e a)  the technical documentation is not available; Amendment 624 Proposal for a regulation Article 68 – paragraph 1 – point e b (new) (e b)  the registration in the EU database has not been carried out; Amendment 625 Proposal for a regulation Article 68 – paragraph 1 – point e c (new) (e c)  where applicable, the authorised representative has not been appointed. Amendment 626 Proposal for a regulation Article 68 – paragraph 2 2.  Where the non-compliance referred to in paragraph 1 persists, the Member State concerned shall take all appropriate measures to restrict or prohibit the high-risk AI system being made available on the market or ensure that it is recalled or withdrawn from the market. 2.  Where the non-compliance referred to in paragraph 1 persists, the national supervisory authority of the Member State concerned shall take appropriate and proportionate measures to restrict or prohibit the high-risk AI system being made available on the market or ensure that it is recalled or withdrawn from the market without delay. The national supervisory authority of the Member State concerned shall immediately inform the AI Office of the non-compliance and the measures taken. Amendment 627 Proposal for a regulation Article 68 – Chapter 3a (new) 3 a.  Remedies Amendment 628 Proposal for a regulation Article 68 a (new) Article 68 a Right to lodge a complaint with a national supervisory authority 1.  Without prejudice to any other administrative or judicial remedy, every natural persons or groups of natural persons shall have the right to lodge a complaint with a national supervisory authority, in particular in the Member State of his or her habitual residence, place of work or place of the alleged infringement if they consider that the AI system relating to him or her infringes this Regulation. 2.  The national supervisory authority with which the complaint has been lodged shall inform the complainant on the progress and the outcome of the complaint including the possibility of a judicial remedy pursuant to Article 78. Amendment 629 Proposal for a regulation Article 68 b (new) Article 68 b Right to an effective judicial remedy against a national supervisory authority 1.  Without prejudice to any other administrative or non-judicial remedy, each natural or legal person shall have the right to an effective judicial remedy against a legally binding decision of a national supervisory authority concerning them. 2.  Without prejudice to any other administrative or non-judicial remedy, each natural or legal person shall have the right to a an effective judicial remedy where the national supervisory authority which is competent pursuant to Articles 59 does not handle a complaint or does not inform the data subject within three months on the progress or outcome of the complaint lodged pursuant to Article 68a. 3.  Proceedings against a national supervisory authority shall be brought before the courts of the Member State where the national supervisory authority is established. 4.  Where proceedings are brought against a decision of a national supervisory authority which was preceded by an opinion or a decision of the Commission in the union safeguard procedure, the supervisory authority shall forward that opinion or decision to the court. Amendment 630 Proposal for a regulation Article 68 c (new) Article 68 c A right to explanation of individual decision-making 1.  Any affected person subject to a decision which is taken by the deployer on the basis of the output from an high-risk AI system which produces legal effects or similarly significantly affects him or her in a way that they consider to adversely impact their health, safety, fundamental rights, socio-economic well-being or any other of the rights deriving from the obligations laid down in this Regulation, shall have the right to request from the deployer clear and meaningful explanation pursuant to Article 13(1) on the role of the AI system in the decision-making procedure, the main parameters of the decision taken and the related input data. 2.  Paragraph 1 shall not apply to the use of AI systems for which exceptions from, or restrictions to, the obligation under paragraph 1 follow from Union or national law are provided in so far as such exception or restrictions respect the essence of the fundamental rights and freedoms and is a necessary and proportionate measure in a democratic society. 3.  This Article shall apply without prejudice to Articles 13, 14, 15, and 22 of the Regulation 2016/679. Amendment 631 Proposal for a regulation Article 68 d (new) Article 68 d Amendment to Directive (EU) 2020/1828 In Annex I to Directive (EU) 2020/1828 of the European Parliament and of the Council 1a, the following point is added: “(67a) Regulation xxxx/xxxx of the European Parliament and of the Council [laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and amending certain Union legislative acts (OJ L ...)]”. _________________ 1a Directive (EU) 2020/1828 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2020 on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers and repealing Directive 2009/22/EC (OJ L 409, 4.12.2020, p. 1). Amendment 632 Proposal for a regulation Article 68 e (new) Article 68 e Reporting of breaches and protection of reporting persons Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council shall apply to the reporting of breaches of this Regulation and the protection of persons reporting such breaches. Amendment 633 Proposal for a regulation Article 69 – paragraph 1 1.  The Commission and the Member States shall encourage and facilitate the drawing up of codes of conduct intended to foster the voluntary application to AI systems other than high-risk AI systems of the requirements set out in Title III, Chapter 2 on the basis of technical specifications and solutions that are appropriate means of ensuring compliance with such requirements in light of the intended purpose of the systems. 1.  The Commission, the AI Office and the Member States shall encourage and facilitate the drawing up of codes of conduct intended, including where they are drawn up in order to demonstrate how AI systems respect the principles set out in Article 4a and can thereby be considered trustworthy, to foster the voluntary application to AI systems other than high-risk AI systems of the requirements set out in Title III, Chapter 2 on the basis of technical specifications and solutions that are appropriate means of ensuring compliance with such requirements in light of the intended purpose of the systems. Amendment 634 Proposal for a regulation Article 69 – paragraph 2 2.  The Commission and the Board shall encourage and facilitate the drawing up of codes of conduct intended to foster the voluntary application to AI systems of requirements related for example to environmental sustainability, accessibility for persons with a disability, stakeholders participation in the design and development of the AI systems and diversity of development teams on the basis of clear objectives and key performance indicators to measure the achievement of those objectives. 2.  Codes of conduct intended to foster the voluntary compliance with the principles underpinning trustworthy AI systems, shall, in particular: (a)   aim for a sufficient level of AI literacy among their staff and other persons dealing with the operation and use of AI systems in order to observe such principles; (b)   assess to what extent their AI systems may affect vulnerable persons or groups of persons, including children, the elderly, migrants and persons with disabilities or whether measures could be put in place in order to increase accessibility, or otherwise support such persons or groups of persons; (c)   consider the way in which the use of their AI systems may have an impact or can increase diversity, gender balance and equality; (d)   have regard to whether their AI systems can be used in a way that, directly or indirectly, may residually or significantly reinforce existing biases or inequalities; (e)   reflect on the need and relevance of having in place diverse development teams in view of securing an inclusive design of their systems; (f)   give careful consideration to whether their systems can have a negative societal impact, notably concerning political institutions and democratic processes; (g)   evaluate how AI systems can contribute to environmental sustainability and in particular to the Union’s commitments under the European Green Deal and the European Declaration on Digital Rights and Principles. Amendment 635 Proposal for a regulation Article 69 – paragraph 3 3.  Codes of conduct may be drawn up by individual providers of AI systems or by organisations representing them or by both, including with the involvement of users and any interested stakeholders and their representative organisations. Codes of conduct may cover one or more AI systems taking into account the similarity of the intended purpose of the relevant systems. 3.  Codes of conduct may be drawn up by individual providers of AI systems or by organisations representing them or by both, including with the involvement of users and any interested stakeholders, including scientific researchers, and their representative organisations, in particular trade unions, and consumer organisations. Codes of conduct may cover one or more AI systems taking into account the similarity of the intended purpose of the relevant systems. Providers adopting codes of conduct will designate at least one natural person responsible for internal monitoring. Amendment 636 Proposal for a regulation Article 69 – paragraph 4 4.  The Commission and the Board shall take into account the specific interests and needs of the small-scale providers and start-ups when encouraging and facilitating the drawing up of codes of conduct. 4.  The Commission and the AI Office shall take into account the specific interests and needs of SMEs and start-ups when encouraging and facilitating the drawing up of codes of conduct. Amendment 637 Proposal for a regulation Article 70 – paragraph 1 – introductory part 1.  National competent authorities and notified bodies involved in the application of this Regulation shall respect the confidentiality of information and data obtained in carrying out their tasks and activities in such a manner as to protect, in particular: 1.  The Commission, national competent authorities and notified bodies, the AI Office and any other natural or legal person involved in the application of this Regulation shall respect the confidentiality of information and data obtained in carrying out their tasks and activities in such a manner as to protect, in particular; Amendment 638 Proposal for a regulation Article 70 – paragraph 1 – point a (a)  intellectual property rights, and confidential business information or trade secrets of a natural or legal person, including source code, except the cases referred to in Article 5 of Directive 2016/943 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure apply. (a)  intellectual property rights, and confidential business information or trade secrets of a natural or legal person, in accordance with the provisions of Directives 2004/48/EC and 2016/943/EC, including source code, except the cases referred to in Article 5 of Directive 2016/943 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure apply; Amendment 639 Proposal for a regulation Article 70 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new) (b a)  public and national security interests Amendment 640 Proposal for a regulation Article 70 – paragraph 1 a (new) 1 a.  The authorities involved in the application of this Regulation pursuant to paragraph 1 shall minimise the quantity of data requested for disclosure to the data that is strictly necessary for the perceived risk and the assessment of that risk. They shall delete the data as soon as it is no longer needed for the purpose it was requested for. They shall put in place adequate and effective cybersecurity, technical and organisational measures to protect the security and confidentiality of the information and data obtained in carrying out their tasks and activities; Amendment 641 Proposal for a regulation Article 70 – paragraph 2 – introductory part 2.  Without prejudice to paragraph 1, information exchanged on a confidential basis between the national competent authorities and between national competent authorities and the Commission shall not be disclosed without the prior consultation of the originating national competent authority and the user when high-risk AI systems referred to in points 1, 6 and 7 of Annex III are used by law enforcement, immigration or asylum authorities, when such disclosure would jeopardise public and national security interests. 2.  Without prejudice to paragraphs 1 and 1a, information exchanged on a confidential basis between the national competent authorities and between national competent authorities and the Commission shall not be disclosed without the prior consultation of the originating national competent authority and the deployer when high-risk AI systems referred to in points 1, 6 and 7 of Annex III are used by law enforcement, immigration or asylum authorities, when such disclosure would jeopardise public or national security. Amendment 642 Proposal for a regulation Article 70 – paragraph 3 3.  Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not affect the rights and obligations of the Commission, Member States and notified bodies with regard to the exchange of information and the dissemination of warnings, nor the obligations of the parties concerned to provide information under criminal law of the Member States. 3.  Paragraphs 1, 1a and 2 shall not affect the rights and obligations of the Commission, Member States and notified bodies with regard to the exchange of information and the dissemination of warnings, nor the obligations of the parties concerned to provide information under criminal law of the Member States; Amendment 643 Proposal for a regulation Article 70 – paragraph 4 4.  The Commission and Member States may exchange, where necessary, confidential information with regulatory authorities of third countries with which they have concluded bilateral or multilateral confidentiality arrangements guaranteeing an adequate level of confidentiality. 4.  The Commission and Member States may exchange, where strictly necessary and in accordance with relevant provisions of international and trade agreements, confidential information with regulatory authorities of third countries with which they have concluded bilateral or multilateral confidentiality arrangements guaranteeing an adequate level of confidentiality. Amendment 644 Proposal for a regulation Article 71 – title Penalties and fines Penalties Amendment 645 Proposal for a regulation Article 71 – paragraph 1 1.  In compliance with the terms and conditions laid down in this Regulation, Member States shall lay down the rules on penalties, including administrative fines, applicable to infringements of this Regulation and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are properly and effectively implemented. The penalties provided for shall be effective, proportionate, and dissuasive. They shall take into particular account the interests of small-scale providers and start-up and their economic viability. 1.  In compliance with the terms and conditions laid down in this Regulation, Member States shall lay down the rules on penalties, applicable to infringements of this Regulation by any operator, and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are properly and effectively implemented and aligned with the guidelines issued by the Commission and the AI Office pursuant to Article 82b. The penalties provided for shall be effective, proportionate, and dissuasive. They shall take into account the interests of SMEs and start-ups and their economic viability; Amendment 646 Proposal for a regulation Article 71 – paragraph 2 2.  The Member States shall notify the Commission of those rules and of those measures and shall notify it, without delay, of any subsequent amendment affecting them. 2.  The Member States shall notify the Commission and the Office by [ 12 months after the date of entry into force of this Regulation] of those rules and of those measures and shall notify them, without delay, of any subsequent amendment affecting them. Amendment 647 Proposal for a regulation Article 71 – paragraph 3 – introductory part 3.  The following infringements shall be subject to administrative fines of up to 30 000 000 EUR or, if the offender is company, up to 6 % of its total worldwide annual turnover for the preceding financial year, whichever is higher: 3.  Non compliance with the prohibition of the artificial intelligence practices referred to in Article 5 shall be subject to administrative fines of up to 40 000 000 EUR or, if the offender is a company, up to 7 % of its total worldwide annual turnover for the preceding financial year, whichever is higher: Amendment 648 Proposal for a regulation Article 71 – paragraph 3 – point a (a)  non-compliance with the prohibition of the artificial intelligence practices referred to in Article 5; deleted Amendment 649 Proposal for a regulation Article 71 – paragraph 3 – point b (b)  non-compliance of the AI system with the requirements laid down in Article 10. deleted Amendment 650 Proposal for a regulation Article 71 – paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a.  Non-compliance of the AI system with the requirements laid down in Article 10 and 13 shall be subject to administrative fines of up to EUR 20 000 000 or, if the offender is a company, up to 4% of its total worldwide annual turnover for the preceding financial year, whichever is the higher. Amendment 651 Proposal for a regulation Article 71 – paragraph 4 4.  The non-compliance of the AI system with any requirements or obligations under this Regulation, other than those laid down in Articles 5 and 10, shall be subject to administrative fines of up to 20 000 000 EUR or, if the offender is a company, up to 4 % of its total worldwide annual turnover for the preceding financial year, whichever is higher. 4.  Non-compliance of the AI system or foundation model with any requirements or obligations under this Regulation, other than those laid down in Articles 5, 10 and 13, shall be subject to administrative fines of up to EUR 10 000 000 or, if the offender is a company, up to 2% of its total worldwide annual turnover for the preceding financial year, whichever is higher; Amendment 652 Proposal for a regulation Article 71 – paragraph 5 5.  The supply of incorrect, incomplete or misleading information to notified bodies and national competent authorities in reply to a request shall be subject to administrative fines of up to 10 000 000 EUR or, if the offender is a company, up to 2 % of its total worldwide annual turnover for the preceding financial year, whichever is higher. 5.  The supply of incorrect, incomplete or misleading information to notified bodies and national competent authorities in reply to a request shall be subject to administrative fines of up to 5 000 000 EUR or, if the offender is a company, up to 1 % of its total worldwide annual turnover for the preceding financial year, whichever is higher. Amendment 653 Proposal for a regulation Article 71 – paragraph 6 – introductory part 6.  When deciding on the amount of the administrative fine in each individual case, all relevant circumstances of the specific situation shall be taken into account and due regard shall be given to the following: 6.  Fines may be imposed in addition to or instead of non-monetary measures such as orders or warnings. When deciding on the amount of the administrative fine in each individual case, all relevant circumstances of the specific situation shall be taken into account and due regard shall be given to the following; Amendment 654 Proposal for a regulation Article 71 – paragraph 6 – point a (a)  the nature, gravity and duration of the infringement and of its consequences; (a)  the nature, gravity and duration of the infringement and of its consequences, taking into account the purpose of the AI system, as well as, where appropriate, the number of affected persons and the level of damage suffered by them; Amendment 655 Proposal for a regulation Article 71 – paragraph 6 – point b (b)  whether administrative fines have been already applied by other market surveillance authorities to the same operator for the same infringement. (b)  whether administrative fines have been already applied by other national supervisory authorities of one or more Member States to the same operator for the same infringement; Amendment 656 Proposal for a regulation Article 71 – paragraph 6 – point c (c)  the size and market share of the operator committing the infringement; (c)  the size and annual turnover of the operator committing the infringement; Amendment 657 Proposal for a regulation Article 71 – paragraph 6 – point c a (new) (c a)  any action taken by the operator to mitigate the harm of damage suffered by the affected persons; Amendment 658 Proposal for a regulation Article 71 – paragraph 6 – point c b (new) (c b)  the intentional or negligent character of the infringement; Amendment 659 Proposal for a regulation Article 71 – paragraph 6 – point c c (new) (c c)  the degree of cooperation with the national competent authorities, in order to remedy the infringement and mitigate the possible adverse effects of the infringement; Amendment 660 Proposal for a regulation Article 71 – paragraph 6 – point c d (new) (c d)  the degree of responsibility of the operator taking into account the technical and organisational measures implemented by them; Amendment 661 Proposal for a regulation Article 71 – paragraph 6 – point c e (new) (c e)  the manner in which the infringement became known to the national competent authorities, in particular whether, and if so to what extent, the operator notified the infringement; Amendment 662 Proposal for a regulation Article 71 – paragraph 6 – point c f (new) (c f)  adherence to approved codes of conduct or approved certification mechanisms; Amendment 663 Proposal for a regulation Article 71 – paragraph 6 – point c g (new) (c g)  any relevant previous infringements by the operator; Amendment 664 Proposal for a regulation Article 71 – paragraph 6 – point c h (new) (c h)  any other aggravating or mitigating factor applicable to the circumstances of the case. Amendment 665 Proposal for a regulation Article 71 – paragraph 7 7.  Each Member State shall lay down rules on whether and to what extent administrative fines may be imposed on public authorities and bodies established in that Member State. 7.  each Member State shall lay down rules on administrative fines to be imposed on public authorities and bodies established in that Member State; Amendment 666 Proposal for a regulation Article 71 – paragraph 8 a (new) 8 a.  The penalties referred to in this article as well as the associated litigation costs and indemnification claims may not be the subject of contractual clauses or other form of burden-sharing agreements between providers and distributors, importers, deployers, or any other third parties; Amendment 667 Proposal for a regulation Article 71 – paragraph 8 b (new) 8 b.  National supervisory authorities shall, on an annual basis, report to the AI Office about the fines they have issued during that year, in accordance with this Article; Amendment 668 Proposal for a regulation Article 71 – paragraph 8 c (new) 8 c.  The exercise by competent authorities of their powers under this Article shall be subject to appropriate procedural safeguards in accordance with Union and national law, including judicial remedy and due process; Amendment 669 Proposal for a regulation Article 72 – paragraph 1 – point a (a)  the nature, gravity and duration of the infringement and of its consequences; (a)  the nature, gravity and duration of the infringement and of its consequences;, taking into account the purpose of the AI system concerned as well as the number of affected persons and the level of damage suffered by them, and any relevant previous infringement; Amendment 670 Proposal for a regulation Article 72 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new) (a a)  any action taken by the Union institution, agency or body to mitigate the damage suffered by affected persons; Amendment 671 Proposal for a regulation Article 72 – paragraph 1 – point a b (new) (a b)  the degree of responsibility of the Union institution, agency or body, taking into account technical and organisational measures implemented by them; Amendment 672 Proposal for a regulation Article 72 – paragraph 1 – point b (b)  the cooperation with the European Data Protection Supervisor in order to remedy the infringement and mitigate the possible adverse effects of the infringement, including compliance with any of the measures previously ordered by the European Data Protection Supervisor against the Union institution or agency or body concerned with regard to the same subject matter; (b)  the degree of cooperation with the European Data Protection Supervisor in order to remedy the infringement and mitigate the possible adverse effects of the infringement, including compliance with any of the measures previously ordered by the European Data Protection Supervisor against the Union institution or agency or body concerned with regard to the same subject matter; Amendment 673 Proposal for a regulation Article 72 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new) (c a)  the manner in which the infringement became known to the European Data Protection Supervisor, in particular whether, and if so to what extent, the Union institution or body notified the infringement; Amendment 674 Proposal for a regulation Article 72 – paragraph 1 – point c b (new) (c b)  the annual budget of the body; Amendment 675 Proposal for a regulation Article 72 – paragraph 2 – introductory part 2.  The following infringements shall be subject to administrative fines of up to 500 000 EUR: 2.  Non compliance with the prohibition of the artificial intelligence practices referred to in Article 5 shall be subject to administrative fines of up to EUR 1 500 000. Amendment 676 Proposal for a regulation Article 72 – paragraph 2 – point a (a)  non-compliance with the prohibition of the artificial intelligence practices referred to in Article 5; deleted Amendment 677 Proposal for a regulation Article 72 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a.  non-compliance of the AI system with the requirements laid down in Article 10 shall be subject to administrative fines of up to 1 000 000 EUR. Amendment 678 Proposal for a regulation Article 72 – paragraph 3 3.  The non-compliance of the AI system with any requirements or obligations under this Regulation, other than those laid down in Articles 5 and 10, shall be subject to administrative fines of up to 250 000 EUR. 3.  the non-compliance of the AI system with any requirements or obligations under this Regulation, other than those laid down in Articles 5 and 10, shall be subject to administrative fines of up to EUR 750 000. Amendment 679 Proposal for a regulation Article 72 – paragraph 6 6.  Funds collected by imposition of fines in this Article shall be the income of the general budget of the Union. 6.  Funds collected by imposition of fines in this Article shall contribute to the general budget of the Union. The fines shall not affect the effective operation of the Union institution, body or agency fined. Amendment 680 Proposal for a regulation Article 72 – paragraph 6 a (new) 6 a.  the European Data Protection Supervisor shall, on an annual basis, notify the AI Office of the fines it has imposed pursuant to this Article. Amendment 681 Proposal for a regulation Article 73 – paragraph 2 2.  The delegation of power referred to in Article 4, Article 7(1), Article 11(3), Article 43(5) and (6) and Article 48(5) shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time from [entering into force of the Regulation]. 2.  The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 4, Article 7(1), Article 11(3), Article 43(5) and (6) and Article 48(5) shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of five years from … [the date of entry into force of the Regulation].The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than 9 months before the end of the five-year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than three months before the end of each period. Amendment 682 Proposal for a regulation Article 73 – paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a.  Before adopting a delegated act, the Commission shall consult with the relevant institutions, the Office, the Advisory Forum and other relevant stakeholders in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making. Once the Commission decides to draft a delegated act, it shall notify the European Parliament of this fact. This notification does not place an obligation on the Commission to adopt the said act. Amendment 683 Proposal for a regulation Article 81 a (new) Article 81 a Amendment to Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 is amended as follows: in Article 14(4), the following paragraph is added: “(l). the power to implement the powers provided for in this Article remotely, where applicable;” Amendment 684 Proposal for a regulation Article 82 a (new) Article 82 a Better Regulation in taking into account the requirements of this Regulation pursuant to the Amendments in Articles 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, and 82, the Commission shall conduct an analysis and consult relevant stakeholders to determine potential gaps as well as overlaps between existing sectoral legislation and the provisions of this Regulation. Amendment 685 Proposal for a regulation Article 82 b (new) Article 82 b Guidelines from the Commission on the implementation of this Regulation 1.  The Commission shall develop, in consultation with the AI office, guidelines on the practical implementation of this Regulation, and in particular on: (a)  the application of the requirements referred to in Articles 8 - 15 and Article 28 to 28b; (b)  the prohibited practices referred to in Article 5; (c)  the practical implementation of the provisions related to substantial modification; (d)  the practical circumstances where the output of an AI system referred to in Annex III would pose a significant risk of harm to the health, safety or fundamental rights of natural persons as referred to in Article 6, paragraph 2, including examples in relation to high risk AI systems referred to in Annex III; (e)  the practical implementation of transparency obligations laid down in Article 52; (f)  the development of codes of conduct referred to in Article 69; (g)  the relationship of this Regulation with other relevant Union law, including as regards consistency in their enforcement. (h)  the practical implementation of Article 12, Article 28b on environmental impact of foundation models and Annex IV 3(b), particularly the measurement and logging methods to enable calculations and reporting of the environmental impact of systems to comply with the obligations in this Regulation, including carbon footprint and energy efficiency, taking into account state-of-the-art methods and economies of scale. When issuing such guidelines, the Commission shall pay particular attention to the needs of SMEs including start-ups, local public authorities and sectors most likely to be affected by this Regulation. 2.  Upon request of the Member States or the AI Office, or on its own initiative, the Commission shall update already adopted guidelines when deemed necessary. Amendment 686 Proposal for a regulation Article 83 – paragraph 1 – introductory part 1.  This Regulation shall not apply to the AI systems which are components of the large-scale IT systems established by the legal acts listed in Annex IX that have been placed on the market or put into service before [12 months after the date of application of this Regulation referred to in Article 85(2)], 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.  Operators of the AI systems which are components of the large-scale IT systems established by the legal acts listed in Annex IX that have been placed on the market or put into service prior to ... [the date of entry into force of this Regulation] shall take the necessary steps to comply with the requirements laid down in this Regulation by … [four years after the date of entry into force of this Regulation]. Amendment 687 Proposal for a regulation Article 83 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 The requirements laid down in this Regulation shall be taken into account, where applicable, in the evaluation of each large-scale IT systems established by the legal acts listed in Annex IX to be undertaken as provided for in those respective acts. The requirements laid down in this Regulation shall be taken into account in the evaluation of each large-scale IT systems established by the legal acts listed in Annex IX to be undertaken as provided for in those respective acts and whenever those legal acts are replaced or amended. Amendment 688 Proposal for a regulation Article 83 – paragraph 2 2.  This Regulation shall apply to the high-risk AI systems, other than the ones referred to in paragraph 1, that have been placed on the market or put into service before [date of application of this Regulation referred to in Article 85(2)], only if, from that date, those systems are subject to significant changes in their design or intended purpose. 2.  This Regulation shall apply to operators of high-risk AI systems, other than the ones referred to in paragraph 1, that have been placed on the market or put into service before [date of application of this Regulation referred to in Article 85(2)], only if, from that date, those systems are subject to substantial modifications as defined in Article 3(23). In the case of high-risk AI systems intended to be used by public authorities, providers and deployers of such systems shall take the necessary steps to comply with the requirements of the present Regulation [two years after the date of entry into force of this Regulation]. Amendment 689 Proposal for a regulation Article 84 – paragraph 1 1.  The Commission shall assess the need for amendment of the list in Annex III once a year following the entry into force of this Regulation. 1.  After consulting the AI Office, the Commission shall assess the need for amendment of the list in Annex III, including the extension of existing area headings or addition of new area headings in that Annex the list of prohibited AI practices in Article 5, and the list of AI systems requiring additional transparency measures in Article 52 once a year following the entry into force of this Regulation and following a recommendation of the Office. the Commission shall submit the findings of that assessment to the European Parliament and the Council. Amendment 690 Proposal for a regulation Article 84 – paragraph 2 2.  By [three years after the date of application of this Regulation referred to in Article 85(2)] and every four years thereafter, the Commission shall submit a report on the evaluation and review of this Regulation to the European Parliament and to the Council. The reports shall be made public. 2.  By … [two years after the date of application of this Regulation referred to in Article 85(2)] and every two years thereafter, the Commission, together with the AI office, shall submit a report on the evaluation and review of this Regulation to the European Parliament and to the Council. The reports shall be made public. Amendment 691 Proposal for a regulation Article 84 – paragraph 3 – point a (a)  the status of the financial and human resources of the national competent authorities in order to effectively perform the tasks assigned to them under this Regulation; (a)  the status of the financial, technical and human resources of the national competent authorities in order to effectively perform the tasks assigned to them under this Regulation; Amendment 692 Proposal for a regulation Article 84 – paragraph 3 – point b a (new) (b a)  the level of the development of harmonised standards and common specifications for Artificial Intelligence; Amendment 693 Proposal for a regulation Article 84 – paragraph 3 – point b b (new) (b b)  the levels of investments in research, development and application of AI systems throughout the Union; Amendment 694 Proposal for a regulation Article 84 – paragraph 3 – point b c (new) (b c)  the competitiveness of the aggregated European AI sector compared to AI sectors in third countries; Amendment 695 Proposal for a regulation Article 84 – paragraph 3 – point b d (new) (b d)  the impact of the Regulation with regards to the resource and energy use, as well as waste production and other environmental impact; Amendment 696 Proposal for a regulation Article 84 – paragraph 3 – point b e (new) (b e)  the implementation of the coordinated plan on AI, taking into account the different level of progress among Member States and identifying existing barriers to innovation in AI; Amendment 697 Proposal for a regulation Article 84 – paragraph 3 – point b f (new) (b f)  the update of the specific requirements regarding the sustainability of AI systems and foundation models, building on the reporting and documentation requirement in Annex IV and in Article 28b; Amendment 698 Proposal for a regulation Article 84 – paragraph 3 – point b g (new) (b g)  the legal regime governing foundation models; Amendment 699 Proposal for a regulation Article 84 – paragraph 3 – point b h (new) (b h)  the list of unfair contractual terms within Article 28a taking into account new business practices if necessary; Amendment 700 Proposal for a regulation Article 84 – paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a.  By ... [two years after the date of entry into application of this Regulation referred to in Article 85(2)] the Commission shall evaluate the functioning of the AI office, whether the office has been given sufficient powers and competences to fulfil its tasks and whether it would be relevant and needed for the proper implementation and enforcement of this Regulation to upgrade the Office and its enforcement competences and to increase its resources. The Commission shall submit this evaluation report to the European Parliament and to the Council. Amendment 701 Proposal for a regulation Article 84 – paragraph 4 4.  Within [three years after the date of application of this Regulation referred to in Article 85(2)] and every four years thereafter, the Commission shall evaluate the impact and effectiveness of codes of conduct to foster the application of the requirements set out in Title III, Chapter 2 and possibly other additional requirements for AI systems other than high-risk AI systems. 4.  Within … [one year after the date of application of this Regulation referred to in Article 85(2)] and every two years thereafter, the Commission shall evaluate the impact and effectiveness of codes of conduct to foster the application of the requirements set out in Title III, Chapter 2 and possibly other additional requirements for AI systems other than high-risk AI systems; Amendment 702 Proposal for a regulation Article 84 – paragraph 5 5.  For the purpose of paragraphs 1 to 4 the Board, the Member States and national competent authorities shall provide the Commission with information on its request. 5.  For the purpose of paragraphs 1 to 4 the AI Office, the Member States and national competent authorities shall provide the Commission with information on its request without undue delay. Amendment 703 Proposal for a regulation Article 84 – paragraph 6 6.  In carrying out the evaluations and reviews referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 the Commission shall take into account the positions and findings of the Board, of the European Parliament, of the Council, and of other relevant bodies or sources. 6.  in carrying out the evaluations and reviews referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 the Commission shall take into account the positions and findings of the -AI Office of the European Parliament, of the Council, and of other relevant bodies or sources and shall consult relevant stakeholders. The result of such consultation shall be attached to the report; Amendment 704 Proposal for a regulation Article 84 – paragraph 7 7.  The Commission shall, if necessary, submit appropriate proposals to amend this Regulation, in particular taking into account developments in technology and in the light of the state of progress in the information society. 7.  the Commission shall, if necessary, submit appropriate proposals to amend this Regulation, in particular taking into account developments in technology, the effect of AI systems on health and safety, fundamental rights, the environment, equality, and accessibility for persons with disabilities, democracy and rule of law and in the light of the state of progress in the information society. Amendment 705 Proposal for a regulation Article 84 – paragraph 7 a (new) 7 a.  To guide the evaluations and reviews referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 of this Article, the Office shall undertake to develop an objective and participative methodology for the evaluation of risk level based on the criteria outlined in the relevant articles and inclusion of new systems in: the list in Annex III, including the extension of existing area headings or addition of new area headings in that Annex; the list of prohibited practices laid down in Article 5; and the list of AI systems requiring additional transparency measures pursuant to Article 52. Amendment 706 Proposal for a regulation Article 84 – paragraph 7 b (new) 7 b.  Any amendment to this Regulation pursuant to paragraph 7 of this Article, or relevant future delegated or implementing acts, which concern sectoral legislation listed in Annex II Ssection B, shall take into account the regulatory specificities of each sector, and existing governance, conformity assessment and enforcement mechanisms and authorities established therein. Amendment 707 Proposal for a regulation Article 84 – paragraph 7 c (new) 7 c.  By … [five years from the date of application of this Regulation], the Commission shall carry out an assessment of the enforcement of this Regulation and shall report it to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee, taking into account the first years of application of the Regulation. On the basis of the findings that report shall, where appropriate, be accompanied by a proposal for amendment of this Regulation with regard to the structure of enforcement and the need for an Union agency to resolve any identified shortcomings. Amendment 708 Proposal for a regulation Annex I ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TECHNIQUES AND APPROACHES referred to in Article 3, point 1 deleted (a)  Machine learning approaches, including supervised, unsupervised and reinforcement learning, using a wide variety of methods including deep learning; (b)  Logic- and knowledge-based approaches, including knowledge representation, inductive (logic) programming, knowledge bases, inference and deductive engines, (symbolic) reasoning and expert systems; (c)  Statistical approaches, Bayesian estimation, search and optimization methods. Amendment 709 Proposal for a regulation Annex III – paragraph 1 – introductory part High-risk AI systems pursuant to Article 6(2) are the AI systems listed in any of the following areas: The AI systems specifically refered to in under points 1 to 8a stand for critical use cases and are each considered to be high-risk AI systems pursuant to Article 6(2), provided that they fulfil the criteria set out in that Article: Amendment 710 Proposal for a regulation Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 1 – introductory part 1.  Biometric identification and categorisation of natural persons: 1.  Biometric and biometrics-based systems Amendment 711 Proposal for a regulation Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a (a)  AI systems intended to be used for the ‘real-time’ and ‘post’ remote biometric identification of natural persons; (a)  AI systems intended to be used for biometric identification of natural persons, with the exception of those mentioned in Article 5; Amendment 712 Proposal for a regulation Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a a (new) (a a)  AI systems intended to be used to make inferences about personal characteristics of natural persons on the basis of biometric or biometrics-based data, including emotion recognition systems, with the exception of those mentioned in Article 5; Point 1 shall not include AI systems intended to be used for biometric verification whose sole purpose is to confirm that a specific natural person is the person he or she claims to be. Amendment 713 Proposal for a regulation Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a (a)  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. (a)  AI systems intended to be used as safety components in the management and operation of road, rail and air traffic unless they are regulated in harmonisation or sectoral law. Amendment 714 Proposal for a regulation Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a a (new) (a a)  AI systems intended to be used as safety components in the management and operation of the supply of water, gas, heating, electricity and critical digital infrastructure; Amendment 715 Proposal for a regulation Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point a (a)  AI systems intended to be used for the purpose of determining access or assigning natural persons to educational and vocational training institutions; (a)  AI systems intended to be used for the purpose of determining access or materially influence decisions on admission or assigning natural persons to educational and vocational training institutions; Amendment 716 Proposal for a regulation Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b (b)  AI systems intended to be used for the purpose of assessing students in educational and vocational training institutions and for assessing participants in tests commonly required for admission to educational institutions. (b)  AI systems intended to be used for the purpose of assessing students in educational and vocational training institutions and for assessing participants in tests commonly required for admission to those institutions; Amendment 717 Proposal for a regulation Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b a (new) (b a)  AI systems intended to be used for the purpose of assessing the appropriate level of education for an individual and materially influencing the level of education and vocational training that individual will receive or will be able to access; Amendment 718 Proposal for a regulation Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b b (new) (b b)  AI systems intended to be used for monitoring and detecting prohibited behaviour of students during tests in the context of/within education and vocational training institutions; Amendment 719 Proposal for a regulation Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point a (a)  AI systems intended to be used for recruitment or selection of natural persons, notably for advertising vacancies, screening or filtering applications, evaluating candidates in the course of interviews or tests; (a)  AI systems intended to be used for recruitment or selection of natural persons, notably for placing targeted job advertisements screening or filtering applications, evaluating candidates in the course of interviews or tests; Amendment 720 Proposal for a regulation Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b (b)  AI intended to be used for making decisions on promotion and termination of work-related contractual relationships, for task allocation and for monitoring and evaluating performance and behavior of persons in such relationships. (b)  AI systems intended to be used to make or materially influence decisions affecting the initiation, promotion and termination of work-related contractual relationships, task allocation based on individual behaviour or personal traits or characteristics, or for monitoring and evaluating performance and behavior of persons in such relationships; Amendment 721 Proposal for a regulation Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point a (a)  AI systems intended to be used by public authorities or on behalf of public authorities to evaluate the eligibility of natural persons for public assistance benefits and services, as well as to grant, reduce, revoke, or reclaim such benefits and services; (a)  AI systems intended to be used by or on behalf of public authorities to evaluate the eligibility of natural persons for public assistance benefits and services, including healthcare services and essential services, including but not limited to housing, electricity, heating/cooling and internet, as well as to grant, reduce, revoke, increase or reclaim such benefits and services; Amendment 722 Proposal for a regulation Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point b (b)  AI systems intended to be used to evaluate the creditworthiness of natural persons or establish their credit score, with the exception of AI systems put into service by small scale providers for their own use; (b)  AI systems intended to be used to evaluate the creditworthiness of natural persons or establish their credit score , with the exception of AI systems used for the purpose of detecting financial fraud; Amendment 723 Proposal for a regulation Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point b a (new) (b a)  AI systems intended to be used for making decisions or materially influencing decisions on the eligibility of natural persons for health and life insurance; Amendment 724 Proposal for a regulation Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point c (c)  AI systems intended to be used to dispatch, or to establish priority in the dispatching of emergency first response services, including by firefighters and medical aid. (c)  AI systems intended to evaluate and classify emergency calls by natural persons or to be used to dispatch, or to establish priority in the dispatching of emergency first response services, including by police and law enforcement, firefighters and medical aid, as well as of emergency healthcare patient triage systems; Amendment 725 Proposal for a regulation Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point a (a)  AI systems intended to be used by law enforcement authorities for making individual risk assessments of natural persons in order to assess the risk of a natural person for offending or reoffending or the risk for potential victims of criminal offences; deleted Amendment 726 Proposal for a regulation Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point b (b)  AI systems intended to be used by law enforcement authorities as polygraphs and similar tools or to detect the emotional state of a natural person; (b)  AI systems intended to be used by or on behalf of law enforcement authorities, or by Union agencies, offices or bodies in support of law enforcement authorities as polygraphs and similar tools, insofar as their use is permitted under relevant Union and national law; Amendment 727 Proposal for a regulation Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point c (c)  AI systems intended to be used by law enforcement authorities to detect deep fakes as referred to in article 52(3); deleted Amendment 728 Proposal for a regulation Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point d (d)  AI systems intended to be used by law enforcement authorities for evaluation of the reliability of evidence in the course of investigation or prosecution of criminal offences; (d)  AI systems intended to be used by or on behalf of law enforcement authorities, or by Union agencies, offices or bodies in support of law enforcement authorities to evaluate the reliability of evidence in the course of investigation or prosecution of criminal offences; Amendment 729 Proposal for a regulation Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point e (e)  AI systems intended to be used by law enforcement authorities for predicting the occurrence or reoccurrence of an actual or potential criminal offence based on profiling of natural persons as referred to in Article 3(4) of Directive (EU) 2016/680 or assessing personality traits and characteristics or past criminal behaviour of natural persons or groups; deleted Amendment 730 Proposal for a regulation Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point f (f)  AI systems intended to be used by law enforcement authorities for profiling of natural persons as referred to in Article 3(4) of Directive (EU) 2016/680 in the course of detection, investigation or prosecution of criminal offences; (f)  AI systems intended to be used by or on behalf of law enforcement authorities or by Union agencies, offices or bodies in support of law enforcement authorities for profiling of natural persons as referred to in Article 3(4) of Directive (EU) 2016/680 in the course of detection, investigation or prosecution of criminal offences or, in the case of Union agencies, offices or bodies, as referred to in Article 3(5) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725; Amendment 731 Proposal for a regulation Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point g (g)  AI systems intended to be used for crime analytics regarding natural persons, allowing law enforcement authorities to search complex related and unrelated large data sets available in different data sources or in different data formats in order to identify unknown patterns or discover hidden relationships in the data. (g)  AI systems intended to be used by or on behalf of law enforcement authorities or by Union agencies, offices or bodies in support of law enforcement authorities for crime analytics regarding natural persons, allowing law enforcement authorities to search complex related and unrelated large data sets available in different data sources or in different data formats in order to identify unknown patterns or discover hidden relationships in the data. Amendment 732 Proposal for a regulation Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point a (a)  AI systems intended to be used by competent public authorities as polygraphs and similar tools or to detect the emotional state of a natural person; (a)  AI systems intended to be used by or on behalf of competent public authorities or by Union agencies, offices or bodies as polygraphs and similar tools insofar as their use is permitted under relevant Union or national law Amendment 733 Proposal for a regulation Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point b (b)  AI systems intended to be used by competent public authorities to assess a risk, including a security risk, a risk of irregular immigration, or a health risk, posed by a natural person who intends to enter or has entered into the territory of a Member State; (b)  AI systems intended to be used by or on behalf of competent public authorities or by Union agencies, offices or bodies to assess a risk, including a security risk, a risk of irregular immigration, or a health risk, posed by a natural person who intends to enter or has entered into the territory of a Member State; Amendment 734 Proposal for a regulation Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point c (c)  AI systems intended to be used by competent public authorities for the verification of the authenticity of travel documents and supporting documentation of natural persons and detect non-authentic documents by checking their security features; (c)  AI systems intended to be used by or on behalf of competent public authorities or by Union agencies, offices or bodies for the verification of the authenticity of travel documents and supporting documentation of natural persons and detect non-authentic documents by checking their security features; Amendment 735 Proposal for a regulation Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point d (d)  AI systems intended to assist competent public authorities for the examination of applications for asylum, visa and residence permits and associated complaints with regard to the eligibility of the natural persons applying for a status. (d)  AI systems intended to be used by or on behalf of competent public authorities or by Union agencies, offices or bodies to assist competent public authorities for the examination and assessment of the veracity of evidence in relation to applications for asylum, visa and residence permits and associated complaints with regard to the eligibility of the natural persons applying for a status; Amendment 736 Proposal for a regulation Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point d a (new) (d a)  AI systems intended to be used by or on behalf of competent public authorities or by Union agencies, offices or bodies in migration, asylum and border control management to monitor, surveil or process data in the context of border management activities, for the purpose of detecting, recognising or identifying natural persons; Amendment 737 Proposal for a regulation Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point d b (new) (d b)  AI systems intended to be used by or on behalf of competent public authorities or by Union agencies, offices or bodies in migration, asylum and border control management for the forecasting or prediction of trends related to migration movement and border crossing; Amendment 738 Proposal for a regulation Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point a (a)  AI systems intended to assist a judicial authority in researching and interpreting facts and the law and in applying the law to a concrete set of facts. (a)  AI systems intended to be used by a judicial authority ot administrative body or on their behalf to assist a judicial authority or administrative body in researching and interpreting facts and the law and in applying the law to a concrete set of facts or used in a similar way in alternative dispute resolution. Amendment 739 Proposal for a regulation Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point a a (new) (a a)  AI systems intended to be used for influencing the outcome of an election or referendum or the voting behaviour of natural persons in the exercise of their vote in elections or referenda. This does not include AI systems whose output natural persons are not directly exposed to, such as tools used to organise, optimise and structure political campaigns from an administrative and logistic point of view. Amendment 740 Proposal for a regulation Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point a b (new) (a b)  AI systems intended to be used by social media platforms that have been designated as very large online platforms within the meaning of Article 33 of Regulation EU 2022/2065, in their recommender systems to recommend to the recipient of the service user-generated content available on the platform. Amendment 741 Proposal for a regulation Annex IV – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a (a)  its intended purpose, the person/s developing the system the date and the version of the system; (a)  its intended purpose, the name of the provider and the version of the system reflecting its relation to previous and, where applicable, more recent, versions in the succession of revisions; Amendment 742 Proposal for a regulation Annex IV – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a a (new) (a a)  the nature of data likely or intended to be processed by the system and, in the case of personal data, the categories of natural persons and groups likely or intended to be affected; Amendment 743 Proposal for a regulation Annex IV – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b (b)  how the AI system interacts or can be used to interact with hardware or software that is not part of the AI system itself, where applicable; (b)  how the AI system can interact or can be used to interact with hardware or software, including other AI systems, that are not part of the AI system itself, where applicable; Amendment 744 Proposal for a regulation Annex IV – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point c (c)  the versions of relevant software or firmware and any requirement related to version update; (c)  the versions of relevant software or firmware and, where applicable, information for the deployer on any requirement related to version update; Amendment 745 Proposal for a regulation Annex IV – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point d (d)  the description of all forms in which the AI system is placed on the market or put into service; (d)  the description of the various configurations and variants of the AI system which are intended to be placed on the market or put into service; Amendment 746 Proposal for a regulation Annex IV – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point f a (new) (f a)  the description of the deployer interface; Amendment 747 Proposal for a regulation Annex IV – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point g (g)  instructions of use for the user and, where applicable installation instructions; (g)  instructions of use for the deployer in accordance with Article 13(2) and (3) as well as 14(4)(e) and, where applicable installation instructions; Amendment 748 Proposal for a regulation Annex IV – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point g a (new) (g a)  a detailed and easily intellegible description of the system’s main optimisation goal or goals; Amendment 749 Proposal for a regulation Annex IV – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point g b (new) (g b)  a detailed and easily intellegible description of the system’s expected output and expected output quality; Amendment 750 Proposal for a regulation Annex IV – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point g c (new) (g c)  detailed and easily intellegible instructions for interpreting the system’s output; Amendment 751 Proposal for a regulation Annex IV – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point g d (new) (g d)  examples of scenarios for which the system should not be used; Amendment 752 Proposal for a regulation Annex IV – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b (b)  the design specifications of the system, namely the general logic of the AI system and of the algorithms; the key design choices including the rationale and assumptions made, also with regard to persons or groups of persons on which the system is intended to be used; the main classification choices; what the system is designed to optimise for and the relevance of the different parameters; the decisions about any possible trade-off made regarding the technical solutions adopted to comply with the requirements set out in Title III, Chapter 2; (b)  a description of the architecture, design specifications, algorithms and the data structures including a decomposition of its components and interfaces, how they relate to one another and how they provide for the overall processing or logic of the AI system; the key design choices including the rationale and assumptions made, also with regard to persons or groups of persons on which the system is intended to be used; the main classification choices; what the system is designed to optimise for and the relevance of the different parameters; the decisions about any possible trade-off made regarding the technical solutions adopted to comply with the requirements set out in Title III, Chapter 2; Amendment 753 Proposal for a regulation Annex IV – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point c (c)  the description of the system architecture explaining how software components build on or feed into each other and integrate into the overall processing; the computational resources used to develop, train, test and validate the AI system; (c)  deleted Amendment 754 Proposal for a regulation Annex IV – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point e (e)  assessment of the human oversight measures needed in accordance with Article 14, including an assessment of the technical measures needed to facilitate the interpretation of the outputs of AI systems by the users, in accordance with Articles 13(3)(d); (e)  assessment of the human oversight measures needed in accordance with Article 14, including an assessment of the technical measures needed to facilitate the interpretation of the outputs of AI systems by the deployers, in accordance with Articles 13(3)(d); Amendment 755 Proposal for a regulation Annex IV – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point g (g)  the validation and testing procedures used, including information about the validation and testing data used and their main characteristics; metrics used to measure accuracy, robustness, cybersecurity and compliance with other relevant requirements set out in Title III, Chapter 2 as well as potentially discriminatory impacts; test logs and all test reports dated and signed by the responsible persons, including with regard to pre-determined changes as referred to under point (f). (g)  the validation and testing procedures used, including information about the validation and testing data used and their main characteristics; metrics used to measure accuracy, robustness and compliance with other relevant requirements set out in Title III, Chapter 2 as well as potentially discriminatory impacts; test logs and all test reports dated and signed by the responsible persons, including with regard to pre-determined changes as referred to under point (f). Amendment 756 Proposal for a regulation Annex IV – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point g a (new) (g a)  cybersecurity measures put in place. Amendment 757 Proposal for a regulation Annex IV – paragraph 1 – point 3 3.  Detailed information about the monitoring, functioning and control of the AI system, in particular with regard to: its capabilities and limitations in performance, including the degrees of accuracy for specific persons or groups of persons on which the system is intended to be used and the overall expected level of accuracy in relation to its intended purpose; the foreseeable unintended outcomes and sources of risks to health and safety, fundamental rights and discrimination in view of the intended purpose of the AI system; the human oversight measures needed in accordance with Article 14, including the technical measures put in place to facilitate the interpretation of the outputs of AI systems by the users; specifications on input data, as appropriate; 3.  Detailed information about the monitoring, functioning and control of the AI system, in particular with regard to: its capabilities and limitations in performance, including the degrees of accuracy for specific persons or groups of persons on which the system is intended to be used and the overall expected level of accuracy in relation to its intended purpose; the foreseeable unintended outcomes and sources of risks to health and safety, fundamental rights and discrimination in view of the intended purpose of the AI system; the human oversight measures needed in accordance with Article 14, including the technical measures put in place to facilitate the interpretation of the outputs of AI systems by the deployers; specifications on input data, as appropriate; Amendment 758 Proposal for a regulation Annex IV – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new) 3 a.  A description of the appropriateness of the performance metrics for the specific AI system; Amendment 759 Proposal for a regulation Annex IV – paragraph 1 – point 3 b (new) 3 b.  Information about the energy consumption of the AI system during the development phase and the expected energy consumption during use, taking into account, where applicable, relevant Union and national law; Amendment 760 Proposal for a regulation Annex IV – paragraph 1 – point 5 5.  A description of any change made to the system through its lifecycle; 5.  A description of any relevant change made by providers to the system through its lifecycle ; Amendment 761 Proposal for a regulation Annex IV – paragraph 1 – point 6 6.  A list of the harmonised standards applied in full or in part the references of which have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union; where no such harmonised standards have been applied, a detailed description of the solutions adopted to meet the requirements set out in Title III, Chapter 2, including a list of other relevant standards and technical specifications applied; 6.  A list of the harmonised standards applied in full or in part the references of which have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union; where no such harmonised standards have been applied, a detailed description of the solutions adopted to meet the requirements set out in Title III, Chapter 2, including a list of other relevant standards or common specifications applied; Amendment 762 Proposal for a regulation Annex V – paragraph 1 – point 4 a (new) 4 a.  Where an AI system involves the processing of personal data, a statement that that AI system complies with Regulations (EU) 2016/679 and (EU) 2018/1725 and Directive (EU) 2016/680. Amendment 763 Proposal for a regulation Annex V – paragraph 1 – point 7 7.  Place and date of issue of the declaration, name and function of the person who signed it as well as an indication for, and on behalf of whom, that person signed, signature. 7.  Place and date of issue of the declaration, signature, name and function of the person who signed it as well as an indication for, and on behalf of whom, that person signed, signature. Amendment 764 Proposal for a regulation Annex VII – point 4 – point 4.5 4.5.  Where necessary to assess the conformity of the high-risk AI system with the requirements set out in Title III, Chapter 2 and upon a reasoned request, the notified body shall also be granted access to the source code of the AI system. 4.5.  Where necessary to assess the conformity of the high-risk AI system with the requirements set out in Title III, Chapter 2, after all other reasonable ways to verify conformity have been exhausted and have proven to be insufficient, and upon a reasoned request, the notified body shall also be granted access to the training and trained models of the AI system, including its relevant parameters. Such access shall be subject to existing Union law on the protection of intellectual property and trade secrets. They shall take technical and organisational measures to ensure the protection of intellectual property and trade secrets. Amendment 765 Proposal for a regulation Annex VIII – paragraph 1 The following information shall be provided and thereafter kept up to date with regard to high-risk AI systems to be registered in accordance with Article 51. Section A - The following information shall be provided and thereafter kept up to date with regard to high-risk AI systems to be registered in accordance with Article 51 (1). Amendment 766 Proposal for a regulation Annex VIII – point 4 a (new) 4 a.  Foundation model trade name and any additional unambiguous refernce allowing identification and traceability Amendment 767 Proposal for a regulation Annex VIII – point 5 5.  Description of the intended purpose of the AI system; 5.  A simple and comprehensible description of a.   the intended purpose of the AI system; b.  the components and functions supported through AI; c.  a basic explanation of the logic of the AI system Amendment 768 Proposal for a regulation Annex VIII – point 5 a (new) 5 a.  where applicable, the categories and nature of data likely or foreseen to be processed by the AI system. Amendment 769 Proposal for a regulation Annex VIII – point 11 11.  Electronic instructions for use; this information shall not be provided for high-risk AI systems in the areas of law enforcement and migration, asylum and border control management referred to in Annex III, points 1, 6 and 7. deleted Amendment 770 Proposal for a regulation ANNEX VIII – SECTION B (new) SECTION B - The following information shall be provided and thereafter kept up to date with regard to high-risk AI systems to be registered in accordance with Article 51 (1a) (a) and (1b). 1.  the name, address and contact details of the deployer ; 2.  the name, address and contact details of the person submitting information on behalf of the deployer ; 3.  the high risk AI system trade name and any additional unambiguous reference allowing identification and traceability of the AI system used; 4.  a) A simple and comprehensible description of the intended use of the AI system, including the specific outcomes sought through the use of the systemn, the geographic and temporal scope of application b.  Where applicable, the categories and nature of data to be processed by the AI system; c.  Arrangements for human oversight and governance d.  Where relevant, the bodies or natural persons responsible for decisions taken or supported by the AI system; 5.  a summary of the findings of the fundamental rights impact assessment conducted in accordance with Article 29a 6.  The URL of the entry of the AI system in the EU database by its provider 7.  A summary of the data protection impact assessment carried out in accordance with Article 35 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or Article 27 of Directive (EU) 2016/680 as specified in paragraph 6 of Article 29 of this Regulation, where applicable. Amendment 771 Proposal for a regulation Annex VIII – Section C (new) Section C - The following information shall be provided and thereafter kept up to date with regard to foundation models to be registered in accordance with Article 28b (e). 1.  Name, address and contact details of the provider; 2.  Where submission of information is carried out by another person on behalf of the provider, the name, address and contact details of that person; 3.  Name, address and contact details of the authorised representative, where applicable; 4.  Trade name and any additional unambiguous reference allowing the identification of the foundation model 5.  Description of the data sources used in the development of the foundational model 6.  Description of the capabilities and limitations of the foundation model, including the reasonably foreseeable risks and the measures that have been taken to mitigate them as well as remaining non-mitigated risks with an explanation on the reason why they cannot be mitigated 7.  Description of the training resources used by the foundation model including computing power required, training time, and other relevant information related to the size and power of the model 8. Description of the model’s performance, including on public benchmarks or state of the art industry benchmarks 8.  Description of the results of relevant internal and external testing and optimisation of the model 9.  Member States in which the foundation model is or has been placed on the market, put into service or made available in the Union; 10.  URL for additional information (optional).