BETA

181 Amendments of Irena JOVEVA related to 2021/0106(COD)

Amendment 55 #
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 without hindering the innovation and the evolution of Artificial Intelligence and the beneficial contributions it can bring to the society. 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.
2022/04/01
Committee: CULT
Amendment 60 #
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 aArtificial iIntelligence 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, innovation and development 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.
2022/04/01
Committee: CULT
Amendment 63 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
(3) Artificial intelligence is a fast evolving family of technologies that can and already 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, media and culture, infrastructure management, energy, transport and logistics, public services, security, justice, resource and energy efficiency, and climate change mitigation and adaptation.
2022/04/01
Committee: CULT
Amendment 78 #
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 space and other private spaces. Online spaces whether publicly accessible or not, either for free or for various fees and conditions 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. If certain online spaces conduct illegal activities defined as such by international and European Union legislation they will be subject to the specific legislation in place.
2022/04/01
Committee: CULT
Amendment 92 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
(17) AI systems providing social scoring of natural persons for general purpose by public authorities, educational institutions 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 and educational 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 used directly or indirectly by public authorities an educational institutions for general purpose should be therefore prohibited.
2022/04/01
Committee: CULT
Amendment 108 #
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. The high risk of non-remote biometric identification systems intended to be used in publicly accessible spaces, workplaces and education and training institutions should be determined on a case-by-case basis considering the need for and logging-in capabilities and other elements that might interfere with the human rights.
2022/04/01
Committee: CULT
Amendment 112 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 35
(35) AI systems used on a compulsory bases by education and training institutions 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 or for determining the areas of study a student should follow 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. However, these systems should be developed and used with the purpose of improving education and vocational training with full respect of the GDPR and other applicable laws. AI systems used to monitor students during tests at education and training institutions should not be considered high-risk, if they use un internal system or database and are fully aligned with the data protection.
2022/04/01
Committee: CULT
Amendment 141 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 86 a (new)
(86 a) Given the rapid technological developments and the required technical expertise in conducting the assessment of high-risk AI systems, the delegation of powers and the implementing powers of the Commission should be exercised with as much flexibility as possible. The Commission should regularly review Annex III , while consulting with the relevant stakeholders.
2022/04/01
Committee: CULT
Amendment 156 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 4
(4) ‘user’ means any natural or legal person, public authority, educational and training institution, 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;
2022/04/01
Committee: CULT
Amendment 158 #
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, and others on the basis of their biometric data;
2022/04/01
Committee: CULT
Amendment 162 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 a (new)
(44 a) 45 new ‘education and training institutions’ means providers where people of different ages gain education and training, including preschools, childcare, primary schools, secondary schools, tertiary education providers, vocational education and training and any type of lifelong learning providers authorized by national education authorities, excluding the NGOs and other economic operators providing vocational training and lifelong learning limited to the sector of their main activity.
2022/04/01
Committee: CULT
Amendment 170 #
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 subliminpsychological techniques beyond a person’s consciousness in orderwith the purpose, the effect or likely effect of to materially distorting a person’s behaviour in a manner that causes or is likely to cause that person or another person physical or psychological harm;
2022/04/01
Committee: CULT
Amendment 173 #
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 person or a specific group of persons due to their known or predicted personality or social or economic situation or due to their age, physical or mental disabilcapacity, 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;
2022/04/01
Committee: CULT
Amendment 180 #
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, educational institutions 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 and emotional behaviour or known or predicted personal or personality characteristics, with the social score leading to either or bothall of the following:
2022/04/01
Committee: CULT
Amendment 183 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c – point ii a (new)
(ii a) (iii) mandatory determining the areas of study a student should follow;
2022/04/01
Committee: CULT
Amendment 375 #
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. The notion of remote biometric identification system shall not include authentification and verification systems whose purpose is to confirm, based on prior consent, that a specific natural person is the person he or she claims to be or to confirm the identity of a natural person for the purpose of having access to a service, a device or premises.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 393 #
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. This exception should nevertheless be limited to trusted countries and international organizations that share the Union’s values.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 428 #
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. SuchIn particular, AI systems that deploy subliminal components individualthat natural persons cannot perceive or, that exploit the vulnerabilities of children and people due to their age, physical or mental incapacities. They do soany groups,or that use purposefully manipulative techniques with the intention to materially distort the behaviour of a person and in a manner that causes or is likely to cause harm to that or another person or to their rights or to the values of the Union should be prohibited. The intention may not be presumed if the distortion of human behaviour results from factors external to the AI system which are outside of the control of the provider or the user. Research for legitimate purposes in relation to such AI systems should not be stifled by the prohibition, if such research does not amount to use of the AI system 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.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 434 #
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 using trustworthiness, good citizenship, patriotism, deviancy, or any other such metric as a proxi. The social score obtained from such AI systems may lead to the detrimental or unfavourable treatment of natural persons or whole groups thereof in social contexts, which are unrelated to the context in which the data was originally generated or collected or to a detrimental treatment that is disproportionate or unjustified to the gravity of their social behaviour. This detrimental treatment can also be effected by providing undue and unjustified privileges to groups of people based on their social score. Such AI systems should be therefore prohibited.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 451 #
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. The use of those systems in publicly accessible places should therefore be prohibited.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 467 #
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. _________________ 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).deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 473 #
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
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 483 #
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
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 490 #
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
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 499 #
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
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 512 #
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.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 527 #
(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 or to Union values as enshrined in Article 2 TEU and such limitation minimises any potential restriction to international trade, if any.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 538 #
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 or to Union values as enshrined in Article 2 TEU, 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. Such systems should be classified as high-risk only insofar as they are built and operated with biometric, biometrics- based, or personal data or they influence decisions of natural persons or make decisions or influence decisions affecting natural persons. This ensures that, when referencing AI systems in pre-defined areas of human activity, this Regulation does not inadvertently apply to AI systems that can have no impact on the health, safety, fundamental rights of natural persons or the values of the Union as enshrined in Article 2 TEU.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 554 #
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, and internet, 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.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 561 #
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 personalised task allocation based on personal or biometric data, monitoring or evaluation of persons in work-related contractual relationships, should also be classified as high-risk, since those systems may appreciably impact future career prospects and livelihoods of these persons. Relevant work-related contractual relationships should involve employees and persons providing services through platforms as referred to in the Commission Work Programme 2021. Such persons should in principle not be considered users within the meaning of this Regulation. Throughout the recruitment process and in the evaluation, promotion, or retention of persons in work-related contractual relationships, such systems may perpetuate historical patterns of discrimination, for example against women, certain age groups, persons with disabilities, or persons of certain racial or ethnic origins or sexual orientation. AI systems used to monitor the performance and behaviour of these persons may also impact their rights to data protection and privacy.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 583 #
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.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 602 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40 a (new)
(40 a) When the “deep fake” content forms part of an evidently artistic, creative, or fictional cinematographic and analogous work, or when the “AI authors” generate content that undergoes human review and for the publication of which a natural or legal person established in the Union is liable or holds editorial responsibility, the AI systems should not be considered high-risk but should nevertheless be subject to adequate transparency requirements, where appropriate.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 606 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40 b (new)
(40 b) Subliminal techniques are techniques that expose natural persons to sensorial stimuli that the natural persons cannot consciously perceive but that are assumed to register in the brain unconsciously, such as flashing images or text for fractions of a second or playing sounds outside the range of perceptible hearing. AI systems deploying such techniques should be prohibited, because these techniques are by their very nature intended to be manipulative. Nevertheless, exceptions are warranted for AI systems using subliminal techniques for research and therapeutical purposes, based on the consent of the natural persons that are being exposed to them. In such limited cases, the AI systems should be considered high-risk and comply with the requirements for high-risk AI systems as set forth in this Regulation.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 663 #
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. Given the potential impact and the need for democratic oversight and scrutiny, users of high-risk AI systems that are public authorities or Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies should be required to conduct a fundamental rights impact assessment prior to commencing the use of a high-risk AI system should be required to register the use of any high- risk AI systems in a public database.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 698 #
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.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 720 #
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. Member States should ensure that the regulatory sandboxes have the adequate financial and human resources for their proper functioning.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 739 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 76
(76) In order to facilitate a smooth,ensure an 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, to achieve a high level of trustworthiness and of protection of health, safety, fundamental rights and the Union values enshrined in Article 2 TEU across the Union with regards to artificial intelligence systems, to actively support Member States, Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies in matters pertaining to this Regulation, to reduce the fragmentation of the internal market, 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, 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, and the FRA. An executive director should be responsible for the coordination of the AI Office’s operations and for the implementation of its work programme. Industry,start-ups and SMEs, and civil society should formally participate in the work of the AI Office through an advisory forum that should ensure varied stakeholder representation and should advise the AI Office on matters pertaining to this Regulation.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 759 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 81
(81) The development of AI systems other than high-risk AI systems in accordance with the requirements of this Regulation may lead to a larger uptake of trustworthy artificial intelligence in the Union. Providers of non-high-risk AI systems should be encouraged to create codes of conduct intended to foster the voluntary application of the mandatory requirements applicable to high-risk AI systems or risk-appropriate codes of conduct that sufficiently increase trust in the underlying technology that is not high-risk. Providers should also be encouraged to apply on a voluntary basis additional requirements related, for example, to environmental sustainability, accessibility to persons with disability, stakeholders’ participation in the design and development of AI systems, and diversity of the development teams. The Commission may develop initiatives, including of a sectorial nature, to facilitate the lowering of technical barriers hindering cross-border exchange of data for AI development, including on data access infrastructure, semantic and technical interoperability of different types of data.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 773 #
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 with industry, civil society, other stakeholders, and 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. _________________ 58 OJ L 123, 12.5.2016, p. 1.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 803 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point e a (new)
(e a) rules for the establishment and functioning of the European Union Artificial Intelligence Office;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 805 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point e b (new)
(e b) measures in support of innovation, including the setting up of regulatory sandboxes, and measures to reduce the regulatory burden on SMEs and start-ups.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 883 #
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. 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 TFEU adducing adequate safeguards with respect to the protection of privacy and fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 902 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 a (new)
Article 2 a Metaverse environments 1. This regulation shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to operators of AI systems operating in virtual environments that can be accessed by natural persons in the Union that fulfil all the following criteria (‘metaverse environments’): (i) they require natural persons to have a uniquely identifiable and permanent representation within the virtual environment that is legally and economically connected to them via an official identity document, a digital identity, a digital wallet, or equivalent; (ii) they are built for social and economic interaction on a large scale; (iii) they allow natural persons to behave and interact virtually in manners that are consistent with their real-world behaviours and interactions and that can be analysed to infer real-world characteristics, including personal data; (iv) they allow natural persons to engage in real-world financial transactions, including through blockchain-backed digital currencies and non-fungible tokens; (v) they allow for such interactions between natural persons as to make possible risks to the health, safety, or fundamental rights of natural persons or to bring prejudice to the values of the Union as enshrined in Article 2 TEU.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1028 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 33 a (new)
(33 a) ‘subliminal techniques’ means techniques that use sensorial stimuli such as images, text, or sounds, that are below the limits of conscious human sensorial perception;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1047 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 35 a (new)
(35 a) ‘remote biometric categorisation system’ means a biometric categorisation system capable of categorising natural persons at a distance;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1051 #
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 , , excluding authentification and verification systems whose sole purpose is to confirm, based on prior consent, that a specific natural person is the person he or she claims to be or to confirm the identity of a natural person for the sole purpose of having access to a service, a device or premises;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1078 #
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 atin the European Artificial Intelligence Boardmanagement board of the AI Office;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1163 #
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 ano, with the exception of AI systems using such techniques for scientific research and for approved therapeutical purposes on the basis of explicit consent of the natural persons that are exposed to them, which systems shall be classified as high risk for ther person physical or psychological harmurposes of this Regulation;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1172 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
(a a) The placing on the market, putting into service or use of an AI system that deploys purposefully manipulative or deceptive techniques 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, infringe on that person’s or another person’s fundamental rights, or contravene the Union values enshrined in Article 2 TEU;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1185 #
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;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1197 #
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 certainn extended period of time based on their social behaviour or known or predicted personal or personality characteristics, (social scoring),with the social score leading to either or both of the following:
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1208 #
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 whichthat are unrelated to the contexts in which the data was originally generated or collected;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1220 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c – point ii a (new)
(ii a) privileged 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;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1233 #
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:
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1253 #
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
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1263 #
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
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1273 #
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. _________________ 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).deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1348 #
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: (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.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1357 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point a
(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;deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1359 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point b
(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.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1362 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
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.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1364 #
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. 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.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1376 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
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.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1381 #
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
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1435 #
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, with the exception of those AI systems that are not safety components of a product and that fulfil both of the following conditions: (a) they are not developed with and do not use biometric data, biometrics-based data, or personal data as inputs; (b) they are not intended to influence decisions of natural persons or to make decisions or to assist in the making of decisions affecting natural persons.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1558 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1
1. H1. Operators of high-risk AI systems shall comply with the requirements established in this Chapter.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1559 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. In complying with the requirements established in this Chapter, operators of high-risk AI systems shall take into account the generally- acknowledged state of the art, including as reflected in the relevant harmonised standards and common specifications referenced in Articles 40 and 41.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1572 #
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. The risk management system can be integrated into, or a part of, already existing risk management procedures insofar as it fulfils the requirements of this article.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1584 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) identification and analysis of the known and reasonably foreseeable risks associated with each high-risk AI system with respect to health, safety, fundamental rights, and the values of the Union as enshrined in Article 2 TEU;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1629 #
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 (a) and (b) of this Article, and, where appropriate, training to users.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1659 #
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 or natural persons suffering from disabilities that render them legally unable to give their consent.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1706 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point g
(g) the identification of relevanyt possible data gaps or shortcomings, and how those gaps and shortcomings can be addressed.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1754 #
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 or equivalent documentation meeting the same objectives, subject to the approval of the competent authority.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1967 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – title
Cooperation with competent authorities, the AI Office and the Commission
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1970 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 1
Providers of high-risk AI systems and where applicable, users shall, upon request by a national competent authority, provide that 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. 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.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1974 #
Upon a reasoned request by a national competent authority or, where applicable, by the Commission, providers and, where applicable, users 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 by virtue of a contractual arrangement with the user or otherwise by law. The national competent authorities or, where applicable, the Commission, shall keep confidential all trade secrets contained in the information received, in accordance with Article 70(2).
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2019 #
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 in its possession or available to it, in accordance with the obligations of distributors as outlined by this Regulation, that are 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.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2033 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Providers that initially placed the high-risk AI system on the market or put it into service shall cooperate closely with distributors, importers, users, or other third-parties to supply them with the necessary information or documentation in their possession that is required for the fulfilment of the obligations set out in this Regulation, in particular at the moment when such distributors, importers, users or other third-parties become the new providers as determined in paragraph 1 and the initial providers are no longer considered a provider for the purposes of this Regulation as determined in paragraph 2.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2040 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 1
1. Users of high-risk AI systems shall use such systems and implement human oversight in accordance with the instructions of use accompanying the systems, pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 5.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2050 #
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. To the extent the user exercises control over the high-risk AI system, that user shall also ensure that relevant and appropriate robustness and cybersecurity measures are in place and are regularly adjusted or updated.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2062 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Users of high-risk AI systems that are public authorities or Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies shall conduct a fundamental rights impact assessment prior to commencing the use of a high-risk AI system;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2125 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 1 a (new)
The Commission shall issue standardisation requests covering all essential requirements of this Regulation in accordance with Article 10 of Regulation 1025/2012 no later than 6 months after the date of entry into force of this Regulation.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2131 #
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 Titleshall issue a standardisation request to one or several of the European standardization organizations in accordance with Article 10 of Regulation 1025/2012 and may, by means of implementing acts, adopt common specifications in respect of the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title, which shall only be valid until the requested harmonised standards have been elaborated and published in the Official Journal of the European Union. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 74(2).
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2293 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 1
1. AI regulatory sandboxes 1. 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 beMember States shall establish AI regulatory sandboxes, which shall be operational by [24 months following the entering into force of this Regulation], and shall ensure that the competent authorities responsible fore their placement on the market or putting into service pursuant to a specific plan. Thi regulatory sandboxes 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 sandboxve sufficient resources available to fulfil their duties effectively and in a timely manner. Regulatory sandboxes can also be established at local, regional or European level.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2298 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. AI regulatory sandboxes established by one or more Member States, by local, regional, or national competent authorities, by the Commission or by 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.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2330 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 5
5. Member States’National competent authorities that have established AI regulatory sandboxes shall coordinate their activities and cooperate within the framework of the European Artificial Intelligence BoardAI Office. They shall submit annual reports to the BoardAI Office and the Commission on the results ofrom the implementation of those scheme, including good practices, incidents, lessons learnt and recommendations on their setup and, where relevant, on the application of this Regulation and other Union legislation supervised within the sandbox. Those reports or abstracts thereof shall be made available to the public in order to further enable innovation in the Union.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2333 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Regulatory sandboxes shall allow and facilitate the testing of possible adaptations of the regulatory framework governing artificial intelligence in order to enhance innovation or reduce compliance costs, without prejudice to the provisions of this Regulation or to the health, safety, fundamental rights of natural persons or to the values of the Union as enshrined in Article 2 TEU. The results and lessons learned from such tests shall be submitted to the AI Office and the Commission.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2334 #
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). no later than 12 months following the entry into force of this Regulation and shall ensure, inter alia: (a) that they allow start-ups to use their participation in the sandbox in order to fulfil, in a guided environment with significantly reduced costs, the conformity assessment obligations of this Regulation or the voluntary application of the codes of conduct referred to in Article 69; (b) that adequate resources are dedicated to the establishment and functioning of the regulatory sandboxes so that the regulatory sandboxes can ensure broad access and keep up with demand for participation without creating disincentivising backlogs or delays; (c)that procedures, processes, and bureaucratic requirements for application, selection, participation, and exiting the sandbox are simple, easily intelligible, clearly communicated, and streamlined so as to facilitate the participation of startups with limited legal and bureaucratic capacities; (d) that procedures, processes, and bureaucratic requirements for application, selection, participation, and exiting the sandbox are streamlined across the Union and that participation in a regulatory sandbox established by a Member State by virtue of its obligation in paragraph 1 or by the Commission is uniformly recognised and carries the same legal effects across the Union.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2341 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. The Commission shall draw up guidelines for the proper establishment, development, implementation, functioning, and supervision of regulatory sandboxes.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2347 #
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 underwhen all of the following conditions are met:
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2352 #
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;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2365 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 1 – point j
(j) a short summary of the AI project developed in the sandbox, its objectives, hypotheses and expected results, and non- confidential testing results, is published on the website of the competent authorities.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2392 #
Proposal for a regulation
Title VI – Chapter 1 – title
1 European Artificial Intelligence BoardOffice
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2394 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 56 – title
Establishment of the European Artificial Intelligence BoardOffice
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2397 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 56 – paragraph 1
1. A ‘European Artificial Intelligence Board’ (the ‘Board’) is establishdeleted.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2404 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 56 – paragraph 2
2. The Board shall provide advice and assistance to the Commission in order to: (a) contribute to the effective cooperation of the national supervisory authorities and the Commission with regard to matters covered by this Regulation; (b) coordinate and contribute to guidance and analysis by the Commission and the national supervisory authorities and other competent authorities on emerging issues across the internal market with regard to matters covered by this Regulation; (c) assist the national supervisory authorities and the Commission in ensuring the consistent application of this Regulation.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2421 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 56 a (new)
Article 56 a SECTION 1:General provisions An independent ‘European Artificial Intelligence Office’ (the ‘AI Office’) is hereby established. The European Union Artificial Intelligence Office shall bean Office of the Union, shall have legal personality, and shall be adequately funded and staffed. The Office shall enjoy in all the Member States the most extensive legal capacity accorded to legal persons under their laws. Or.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2422 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 56 b (new)
Article 56 b Mandate 1. The AI Office shall carry out the tasks assigned to it under this Regulation for the purpose of achieving a high level of trustworthiness and of protection of health, safety, fundamental rights and the Union values enshrined in Article 2 TEU across the Union with regards to artificial intelligence systems, including by actively supporting Member States, Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies in matters pertaining to this Regulation. The AI Office shall act as a reference point for advice and expertise on artificial intelligence for Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, for Member States and their national supervisory authorities, as well as for other relevant Union stakeholders. 2. The AI Office shall contribute to reducing the fragmentation of the internal market and to increasing the uptake of artificial intelligence throughout the Union by carrying out the tasks assigned to it under this Regulation. 3. When carrying out its tasks, the AI Office shall act independently while avoiding the duplication of Member State activities and taking into consideration Member State competences. 4. The AI Office shall organise consultations with stakeholders twice a year to assess the evolution of trends in technology, issues related to the implementation and the effectiveness of this Regulation, regulatory gaps or loopholes observed in practice. Such stakeholders shall include representatives from industry, start-ups and SMEs, civil society organisations, such as NGOs, consumer associations, the social partners and academia. 5. The AI Office may consult national authorities, such as national equality bodies, where the issues discussed are of relevance for them. The AI Office may also consult, where appropriate, external experts and observers and interested third parties, including stakeholders such as those referred to in paragraph 5, and may hold exchanges with them. 6. The AI Office shall cooperate with Union institutions, bodies, offices, agencies and advisory groups and shall make the results of that cooperation publicly available.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2423 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 56 c (new)
Article 56 c Accountability, transparency, and independence 1. The AI Office shall be accountable to the European Parliament and to the Council in accordance with this Regulation. 2. The AI Office shall develop good administrative practices in order to ensure the highest possible level of transparency concerning its activities. Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 shall apply to documents held by the AI Office. 3. The AI Office shall fulfil its tasks in complete independence.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2424 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 56 d (new)
Article 56 d Administrative and management structure 1. The administrative and management structure of the AI Office shall comprise: (a) a management board (b) an executive director (c) an advisory forum (d) where appropriate, other advisory bodies established by the management board to support the AI Office in technical or scientific matters related to this Regulation.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2425 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 56 e (new)
Article 56 e Objectives 1. The AI Office shall: (a) contribute to the uptake of artificial intelligence in the Union, including through supporting innovation and the development of regulatory sandboxes provided for in this Regulation; (b) contribute to a high level of trustworthiness and of protection of health, safety, fundamental rights and the Union values enshrined in Article 2 TEU with regard to artificial intelligence systems in the Union; (c) contribute to the effective cooperation of the national supervisory authorities and the Commission with regard to matters covered by this Regulation; (d) provide forecasts, guidance, and analysis to the Commission, Member States, and to the national supervisory authorities and other competent authorities on emerging issues across the internal market with regard to matters covered by this Regulation and related issues; (e) contribute to the effective and consistent application of this Regulation and assist Member States, the national supervisory authorities, and the Commission in this regard; (f) contribute to the effective cooperation with the competent authorities of third countries and with international organisations; (g) contribute to the development, promotion, and adoption of harmonized standards, common specifications, common benchmarking standards, and voluntary codes of conduct; (h) contribute to the effective and consistent enforcement of this Regulation throughout the Union, including by issuing binding decisions with regard to cases involving two or more Member States asset out in Article 59b.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2427 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 57
Structure of the Board 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. 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. 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. 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.Article 57 deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2471 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 a (new)
Article 57 a Composition of the management board 1. The management board shall be composed of one representative of each Member State, the Commission, and the European Data Protection Supervisor, and the Fundamental Rights Agency. Each Member State and the Commission shall have one vote. The EDPS and the FRA shall not have voting rights. 2. Each member of the management board shall have an alternate. That alternate shall represent the member in the member’s absence. 3. The Commission and the Member States shall aim to achieve gender balance on the management board. 4. The list of the members and alternate members of the management board shall be made public and shall be updated by the AI Office on its web site. 5. The term of office of the members of the management board and their alternates shall be four years. That term shall be renewable once.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2472 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 b (new)
Article 57 b Functions of the management board 1. The management board shall be responsible for taking the strategic decisions of the AI Office in accordance with this Regulation. In particular, the management board shall: (a) Establish the general direction of the operation of the AI Office and ensure that the AI Office operates in accordance with the rules and principles laid down in this Regulation; (b) Adopt, on the basis of the draft submitted by the Office's executive director and after the Commission has delivered an opinion, the single programming document of the AI Office containing, inter alia, the AI Office’s multiannual programming and its work programme for the following year. The single programming document shall be transmitted to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission; (c) Appoint the executive director and, where relevant, extend his or her term of office or remove him or her from office; (d) Produce, on the basis of a draft drawn up by the executive director, the estimate budget of the AI Office for the following financial year. This estimate, which shall initially include a draft establishment plan by the date of entry into force of this Regulation, shall be transmitted by the management board to the Commission within the first quarter of each year; (e)Adopt the AI Office’s annual draft and final budgets; (f) Assess and adopt the consolidated annual report on the AI Office activities, including an evaluation based on performance indicators; submit both the annual report and the assessment thereof to the European Parliament, to the Council, to the Commission and to the Court of Auditors, and make the annual report public; (g) Adopt the AI Office’s rules of procedure on the basis of the draft submitted by the executive director after the Commission has delivered an opinion; (h) Take decisions, based on the executive director’s recommendation, concerning the establishment of the AI Office’s internal structures and, where necessary, the modification of those internal structures, taking into consideration technological developments that may create additional operational needs and having regard to sound budgetary management;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2473 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 c (new)
Article 57 c Meetings of the management board 1. The meetings of the management board shall be convened by the Chair. The Chair shall prepare the agenda of the meetings in accordance with the tasks of the Board pursuant to this Regulation and with its rules of procedure. 2. The meetings of the management board shall be considered to be quorate where at least two-thirds of its members are present. 3. The management board shall hold at least two ordinary meetings a year. It shall also hold extraordinary meetings at the request of the Chair, at the request of the Commission, or at the request of at least one third of its members. 4. The executive director shall take part in the meetings of the management board but shall not have the right to vote. 5. Members of the advisory forum may take part in the meetings of the management board at the invitation of the Chair, but shall not have the right to vote. 6. The members of the management board and their alternates may be assisted at the meetings of the management board by advisers or experts, subject to the rules of procedure of the management board. 7. The AI Office shall provide the secretariat of the management board and support the management Board in its operations.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2474 #
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 a deputy Chair from among its voting members by simple majority. The term of office of the Chair and of the deputy Chair shall be three years. The terms of the Chair and of the deputy Chair may be renewed once. The Deputy Chair shall replace the Chair ex officio if the Chair is unable to attend to his or her duties.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2475 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 d (new)
Article 57 d Voting rules of the management board 1. The management board shall take its decisions by a majority of its members, unless otherwise provided for in this Regulation. 2. A majority of two-thirds of the members of the management board shall be required for the adoption of the single programming document and of the annual budget and for the appointment, extension of the term of office or removal of the executive director. 3. Each member shall have one vote. In the absence of a member, their alternate shall be entitled to exercise the member’s right to vote. 4. The Chair of the management board shall take part in the voting. 5. The executive director shall not take part in the voting. 6. The management board’s rules of procedure shall establish more detailed voting arrangements, in particular the circumstances in which a member may act on behalf of another member.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2477 #
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2486 #
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 BoardIn fulfilling its objectives, the AI Office shall in particular:
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2493 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
(a a) issue opinions, recommendations or written contributions on matters related to the implementation of this Regulation;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2494 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point a b (new)
(a b) examine, on its own initiative or on request of its management board, any question covering the application of this Regulation and issue guidelines, recommendations and best practices with a view to ensuring the consistent implementation of this Regulation;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2495 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point a c (new)
(a c) provide the Commission, in the cases referred to in Article 68a (1)(a) and(1)(b), with all the available information at its disposal, including market studies, impact assessments, and analyses referred to in paragraph (f) of this article, to prepare the decision for triggering the Commission's intervention and opening of proceedings pursuant to Article 68a;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2496 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point a d (new)
(a d) assist Member States in developing the organizational and technical expertise required for the implementation of this Regulation;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2497 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) contribute to uniform administrative practices in the Member States, including for the functioning of regulatory sandboxes referred to in Article 53by assisting Member States, the Commission, and, where applicable, other authorities in the establishment, development, and functioning of regulatory sandboxes referred to in Article 53, including by providing input and support in drafting the delegated acts referred to in Article 53(6);
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2501 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
(b a) Support innovation by coordinating the exchange of information and good practices and by facilitating the cooperation among regulatory sandboxes established according to Article 53 and by making available on its website the information referred to in Article 53 (5).
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2502 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point c – introductory part
(c) issue opinions, recommendations or, written contributions, or studies on matters related to the implementation of this Regulation,technical specifications or existing standards regarding the requirements set out in Title III, Chapter 2 and on the use of harmonised standards or common specifications referred to in paArticular les 40and 41;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2505 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point c – point i
(i) on technical specifications or existing standards regarding the requirements set out in Title III, Chapter 2,deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2506 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point c – point ii
(ii) on the use of harmonised standards or common specifications referred to in Articles 40 and 41,deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2507 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point c – point iii
(iii) on the preparation of guidance documents, including the guidelines concerning the setting of administrative fines referred to in Article 71.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2516 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(c a) support the Commission and the Member States in the preparation of guidance documents, including the guidelines concerning the setting of administrative fines referred to in Article 71;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2519 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point c b (new)
(c b) encourage, facilitate and support the drawing up of risk-commensurate codes of conduct intended to foster the voluntary application to AI systems of those codes of conduct in close cooperation with industry and other relevant stakeholders in accordance with Article 69;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2523 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point c c (new)
(c c) carry out periodic in-depth horizon-scanning, foresight, and market monitoring exercises to analyse trends and emerging issues in respect of this Regulation, with a particular focus on emerging technologies and their interaction with artificial intelligence, European global competitiveness in artificial intelligence, the uptake of artificial intelligence technologies, the development of digital skills, and emerging systemic threats related to artificial intelligence, including those referred to in Article 68a (1)(a) and (1)(b);
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2528 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point c d (new)
(c d) cooperate with the European Data Protection Board and with the FRA to provide guidance in relation to the respect of fundamental rights, in particular the right to non-discrimination and to equal treatment, the right to privacy and the protection of personal data;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2534 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point c e (new)
(c e) promote public awareness and understanding of the benefits, risks, rules and safeguards and rights in relation to the use of AI systems;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2538 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point c f (new)
(c f) promote the cooperation and effective bilateral and multilateral exchange of information and best practices between the national supervisory authorities;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2540 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point c g (new)
(c g) facilitate cooperation between the supervisory authorities of Member States and other supervisory authorities that might be responsible for the enforcement of this Regulation;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2543 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point c h (new)
(c h) support capacity and expertise building in supervisory authorities that are responsible for the enforcement of this Regulation;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2544 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point c i (new)
(c i) advise the Commission on the possible amendment of the Annexes by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 73, in particular the annex listing high-risk AI systems;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2545 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point c j (new)
(c j) ensure that the national supervisory authorities actively cooperate in the implementation of this Regulation;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2546 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point c k (new)
(c k) adopt binding decisions for national competent authorities in cases of serious disagreements pursuant to article 59a (5);
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2547 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point c l (new)
(c l) promote the development of a common European approach to benchmarking by cooperating with national metrology and benchmarking authorities and by issuing opinions, recommendations, written contributions, or studies with a view to ensure consistent and harmonised European benchmarking standards;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2548 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point c m (new)
(c m) provide guidance in relation to children’s rights, applicable law and minimum standards to meet the objectives of this Regulation that pertain to children;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2549 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point c n (new)
(c n) promote and support the accessible development and use of artificial intelligence systems, in accordance with the provisions of Directive (EU) 2019/882;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2552 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 a (new)
Article 58 a SECTION 3:the Executive Director Functions and powers of the executive director 1. The AI Office shall be managed by its executive director, who shall be completely independent in the performance of his or her duties. Without prejudice to the respective competencies of the Union institutions and the management board, the executive director shall neither seek nor take instructions from any government or from any other body. 2. The executive director may be called upon at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council to attend a hearing on any matter linked to the AI Office's activities or to report on the carrying out of his or her tasks. This includes reporting on the activities of the AI Office, the implementation of its annual programming, the annual activity report for the previous year, and any other matter related to the activities of the AO Office. The executive director shall also make a statement before the European Parliament, if requested, and shall answer in writing any question put forward by a Member of the European Parliament within 15 calendar days from receipt of such question. The executive director shall report regularly to the appropriate bodies and committees of the European Parliament. 3. Except where specific deadlines are provided for in this Regulation, the executive director shall ensure that reports are transmitted to the European Parliament, to the Council and to the Commission as soon as possible, and in any event within six months of the end of the reporting period, unless the executive director duly justifies a delay in writing. 4. The executive director shall be responsible for the preparation and implementation of the strategic decisions taken by the management board and for the taking of decisions related to the operational activities of the AI Office in accordance with this Regulation. The executive director shall have the following functions and powers: (a) to propose, prepare and implement the strategic decisions and programmes and activities adopted by the management board within the limits set out in this Regulation, its implementing rules and any applicable law; (b) to take all necessary steps, including the adoption of internal administrative instructions and the publication of notices, to ensure the day-to-day administration and functioning of the AI Office in accordance with this Regulation; (c) to prepare each year the draft single programming document pursuant to Article 57a (b) and to submit it to the management board for endorsement before that draft is sent to the European Parliament, to the Council and to the Commission; (d) to draw up a draft statement of estimates of the revenues and expenditure of the AI Office as part of the single programming document pursuant to Article 57a (d) and to implement thebudget of the AI Office; (e) to prepare each year the annual activity report on the Agency's activities and submit it to the management board; (f) to coordinate all staff matters and all matters of day-to-day administration of the AI Office; (g) to prepare appropriate draft implementing rules to give effect to the Staff Regulations and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants in accordance with Article 110 of the Staff Regulations; (h) to protect the values and interests of the Union by drawing up, submitting to the management board for approval, and implementing effective internal anti- fraud, anti-corruption, data protection and equal opportunity strategies, procedures, and safeguards; (i) to establish and implement effective monitoring and evaluation procedures relating to the performance of the AI Office against its objectives and to report annually to the management board on the results of the monitoring; (j) to consult the advisory forum and to facilitate its operations; (k) to develop and maintain contact with industry, standardization bodies, academia, and civil society, including organizations protecting fundamental and digital rights, consumers, workers, children, persons with disabilities, and other vulnerable categories, to ensure regular dialogue with relevant stakeholders; (l) to cooperate and to exchange views and information regularly with Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies regarding artificial intelligence and related domains such as data, digital infrastructure, platform and internet governance, and cybersecurity, tonsure coherence in the development and the implementation of Union policy; (m) to represent the AI Office in international fora for cooperation on Artificial Intelligence; (n) To support the Chair of the management board in preparing and planning the management board meetings; (o) to perform other tasks pursuant to this Regulation. 5. The executive director shall be accountable for his or her activities to the management board. 6. The executive director shall be the legal representative of the AI Office.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2555 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 b (new)
Article 58 b SECTION 4:the Advisory Forum The advisory forum 1. An advisory forum shall be established by the AI Office to advise it in the fulfilment of its tasks by providing stakeholder input in matters pertaining to this Regulation, in particular on: (a) technological developments and trends related to artificial intelligence; (b) potential updates of this Regulation, including prohibited practices, high-risk AI systems, AI systems requiring additional transparency obligations, and novel techniques used for the development of artificial intelligence; (c) best practices to optimise compliance and to reduce compliance costs and regulatory burden; (d) measures in support of innovation, start-ups, and SMEs, including improving participation in regulatory sandboxes; (e) the development, promotion, and uptake of harmonised standards, harmonised benchmarking standards, and common specifications; (f) emerging threats to health, safety, fundamental rights, or the values of the Union as enshrined in Article2 TEU related to artificial intelligence; 2. The advisory forum shall have a balanced composition and represent the views of different stakeholders, with a third of its members representing industry, a third of its members representing start-ups, SMEs, and the innovation environment, and a third of its members representing civil society and academia. 3. Stakeholders established outside the Union shall only participate in the advisory forum if they are established in third countries that are subject to 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 that are part of an international agreement concluded between the Union and that third country or international organisation pursuant to Article 218 TFEU adducing adequate safeguards with respect to the protection of privacy and fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals. 4. Members of the advisory forum shall be appointed by the management board, based on a recommendation from the executive director, following a transparent call for applications and selection procedure. 5. When drawing up the call for applications and the selection procedure, the executive director shall ensure that: (a) the composition criteria stet out in paragraph 2 are met; (b) the representation of industry, start- up, SMEs and the innovation environment is varied and includes stakeholders of different sizes and representing different industries; (c) the representation of civil society is varied and includes, at a minimum, organizations for the protection of democracy, fundamental rights, consumer rights, the rights of persons with disabilities, and children’s rights; (d) the advisory forum is balanced in terms of geographical distribution and gender. 6. The term of office of the members of the advisory forum shall be two years. To ensure diversity and balanced representation, the term of office for members of the advisory forum shall not be renewable consecutively. 7. The advisory forum shall draw up its rules of procedure and elect three co- Chairs from among its members according to there presentation criteria set out in paragraph 2. Their term of office shall be two years, non-renewable. 8. The advisory forum shall hold regular meetings at least four times a year. The advisory forum can invite experts and other stakeholders to its meetings. The executive director can attend, ex officio, the meetings of the advisory forum. 9. In fulfilling its role as set out in paragraph 1, the advisory forum can prepare opinions, recommendations or written contributions and forward these to the attention of the executive director. 10. The advisory forum shall prepare an annual report of its activities. That report shall be made publicly available, including on the AI Office website. 11. The AI Office shall provide secretarial assistance to the advisory forum to ensure its proper functioning.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2581 #
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 BoardAI Office for discussion and possible recommendations.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2597 #
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 provider or the user of the concerned AI system is established or where the authorised representative is appointed shall be considered to be the lead national supervisory authority. 3. In the cases referred to in paragraph 2,the relevant national supervisory authorities shall cooperate and exchange all relevant information in due time. National supervisory authorities shall cooperate in order to reach a consensus. 4. In the case of a serious disagreement between two or more national supervisory authorities, the national supervisory authorities shall notify the AI Office and communicate without delay all relevant information related to the case to the AI Office. 5. The AI Office shall, within three months of receipt of the notification referred to in paragraph 4, issue a binding decision to the national supervisory authorities.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2688 #
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, after all other reasonable ways to verify conformity have been exhausted and have proven to be insufficient, and upon a reasoned request, the market surveillance authorities or, where applicable, the Commission, shall be granted access to the source code of the AI system. Such access shall be subject to existing Union law on the protection of intellectual property and trade secrets.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2723 #
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, the AI Office and the other Member States of the results of the evaluation and of the actions which it has required the operator to take.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2748 #
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, or 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.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2753 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 67 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Should the provider or other relevant operators fail to take corrective action as referred to in paragraph 2 and should the AI system continue to present a risk as referred to in paragraph 1, the market surveillance authority may require the relevant operator, as a measure of last resort, to withdraw the AI system from the market or to recall it within a reasonable period, commensurate with the nature of the risk.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2755 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 67 – paragraph 3
3. The Member State shall immediately inform the Commission, the AI Office, 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.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2790 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 69 – paragraph 2
2. The Commission and the BoardAI Office 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.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2792 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 69 – paragraph 4
4. The Commission and the BoardAI Office 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.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2798 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 70 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. NThe Commission, the AI Office, national competent authorities and notified bodies involved in the application of this Regulation shall respect the confidentiality of information and data obtained in carrying out their tasks and activities in such a manner as to protect, in particular:
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2820 #
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 and size of small-scale providers and start- ups and their economic viability.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2831 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 71 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. The following infringementsNon-compliance with the prohibition of the artificial intelligence practices referred to in Article 5 shall be subject to administrative fines of up to 30 000 000 EUR or, if the offender is a company, up to 6 % of its total worldwide annual turnover for the preceding financial year, whichever is higher:;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2876 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 71 – paragraph 7
7. Each Member State shall lay down rules on whether and to what extent administrative fines mayto be imposed on public authorities and bodies established in that Member State, with a view to ensure compliance with this Regulation.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2895 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The following infringementsNon-compliance with the prohibition of the artificial intelligence practices referred to in Article 5 shall be subject to administrative fines of up to 51.000 000 EUR:;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2910 #
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 25300 000 EUR.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2925 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 73 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Prior to adopting a delegated act pursuant to Article 4, Article 7(1), Article 11(3), Article 43(5) and (6), and Article48(5) the Commission shall consult the AI Office.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2926 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 73 – paragraph 3 b (new)
3 b. Delegated acts that lead to the modification or the addition of obligations on operators shall foresee an adequate transition period of no less than 24 months before their entry into force.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2928 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 73 – paragraph 4
4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to, the Council, and the AI Office.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2942 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 82 a (new)
Article 82 a Sound 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 in order to avoid duplication, overregulation, and the creation of loopholes.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2946 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 83 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. This Regulation shall not apply toOperators 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 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 shall take the necessary steps to comply with the requirements of the present Regulation within 4 years of its entry into force.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2952 #
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 and whenever those legal acts are replaced or amended.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2957 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 83 – paragraph 2
2. This Regulation shall apply to theOperators 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 significant changes shall take the necessary steps to comply with the requirements of the present Regulation within 2 years of its entry into force or at the time when such systems are subject to a substantial modification in their design or intended purpose.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2970 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 84 – paragraph 1
1. TIn consultation with the AI Office, the Commissions shall assess the need for amendment of the list in Annex III once a year following the entry into force of this Regulation.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2976 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 84 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) the state of penalties, and notably administrative fines as referred to in Article 71(1), applied by Member States to infringements of the provisions of this Regulation.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2977 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 84 – paragraph 3 – point b a (new)
(b a) the state of the development of harmonised standards and common specifications for Artificial Intelligence;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2981 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 84 – paragraph 4
4. Within [threone years after the date of application of this Regulation referred to in Article 85(2)] and every fourtwo 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.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2983 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 84 – paragraph 5
5. For the purpose of paragraphs 1 to 4 the BoardAI Office, the Member States and national competent authorities shall provide the Commission with information on its request.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2989 #
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 BoardAI Office, of the European Parliament, of the Council, and of other relevant bodies or sources.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3047 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 1 – introductory part
1. 1.Biometric identification and categorisation of natural persons:and biometrics-based systems: (a) AI systems intended to be used for the ‘real-time’ and ‘post’ remote biometric identification of natural persons; (b) AI systems intended to be used for the remote biometric categorisation of natural persons in publicly-accessible spaces; (c) AI systems intended to be used for emotion recognition in natural persons;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3110 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point a
(a) AI systems intended to be used forin recruitment or selection of natural persons, notably for advertising vacancies, screening or filtering applications, or evaluating candidates in the course of interviews or tests;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3117 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b
(b) AI systems intended to be used for making decisions or to assist in making decisions on promotion and termination of work-related contractual relationships,; for personalized task allocation based on biometrics, biometrics-based, or personal data; and for monitoring and evaluating performance and behaviour of natural persons in such relationships.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3125 #
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, increase, or reclaim such benefits and services;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3163 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point b
(b) AI systems intended to be used by law enforcement authorities or on behalf of law enforcement authorities as polygraphs and similar tools or to detect the emotional state of a natural person;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3166 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point c
(c) AI systems intended to be used by law enforcement authorities or on behalf of law enforcement authorities to detect deep fakes as referred to in article 52(3);
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3169 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point d
(d) AI systems intended to be used by law enforcement authorities or on behalf of law enforcement authorities for evaluation of the reliability of evidence in the course of investigation or prosecution of criminal offences;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3182 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point f
(f) AI systems intended to be used by law enforcement authorities or on behalf 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;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3196 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point a
(a) AI systems intended to be used by competent public authorities or on their behalf as polygraphs and similar tools or to detect the emotional state of a natural person;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3204 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point b
(b) AI systems intended to be used by competent public authorities or on their behalf 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;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3208 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point c
(c) AI systems intended to be used by competent public authorities or on their behalf 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;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3213 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point d
(d) AI systems intended to be used by competent public authorities or on their behalf or to assist competent public authorities forin 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.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3230 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point a
(a) AI systems intended to be used by a judicial authority or administrative body or on their behalf or to assist a judicial authority or administrative body in researching and interpreting facts andor the law and in applying the law to a concrete set of facts.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3235 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point a a (new)
(a a) AI systems used by political parties, political candidates, public authorities, or on their behalf for influencing natural persons in the exercise of their vote in local, national, or European Parliament elections;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3237 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 8 a (new)
8 a. Other applications: (a) AI systems intended to be used to generate, on the basis of limited human input, complex text content that would falsely appear to a person to be human generated and authentic, such as news articles, opinion articles, novels, scripts, and scientific articles, with the exception of AI systems used exclusively for content that undergoes human review and for the publication of which a natural or legal person established in the Union is liable or holds editorial responsibility; (b) AI systems intended to be used to generate or manipulate audio or video content that features existing natural persons appearing to say or do something they have never said or done, with the exception of AI systems used exclusively for content that forms part of an evidently artistic, creative or fictional cinematographic and analogous work; (c)AI systems that deploy subliminal techniques for scientific research and for therapeutical purposes;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3280 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex IV – paragraph 1 – point 5
5. A description of any relevant change made to the system through its lifecycle;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3286 #
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, 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 source code of the AI system. Such access shall be subject to existing Union law on the protection of intellectual property and trade secrets.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3294 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex VIII – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a.The following information shall be provided and updated with regard to high risk AI systems to be registered in accordance with Article 51(2) by users who are or act on behalf of public authorities or Union institutions, bodies, offices or agencies: 1. the name, address and contact details of the user; 2. the name, address and contact details of any person submitting information on behalf of the user; 3. the high-risk AI system trade name and any additional unambiguous reference allowing identification and traceability of the AI system used; 4. description of the intended use of the AI system, including the specific outcomes sought through the use of the system; 5. a summary of the findings of the fundamental rights impact assessment conducted in accordance with the obligation of public authorities or Union institutions, agencies, offices or bodies set out in this Regulation; 6. 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; 6. a declaration of conformity with the applicable data protection rules.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE