BETA

385 Amendments of René REPASI related to 2021/0106(COD)

Amendment 310 #
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 based on ethical principles in particular for the development, marketingdeployment and use of artificial intelligence in conformity with Union values. Therefore, this Regulation pursues a number of overriding reasons of public interest, such as a high level of protection of health, safety, environment and fundamental rights and values including democracy and rule of law, and it ensures the free movement of AI- based goods and services cross-border, thus preventing Member States from imposing restrictions on the development, marketingdeployment and use of AI systems, unless explicitly authorised by this Regulation.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 316 #
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, the placing on the market, the putting into service and the marketing and use of artificial intelligence in conformity with Union values. This Regulation pursues a number of overriding reasons of public interest, such as a high level of protection of health, safety and, fundamental rights, the environment and the Union values enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), 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.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 319 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
(2) Artificial intelligence systems (AI systems) can be easily deployed in multiple sectors of the economy and society, including cross border, and circulate throughout the Union. Certain Member States have already explored the adoption of national rules to ensure that artificial intelligence is trustworthy and safe and is developed and used in compliance with fundamental rights obligations. Differing national rules may lead to fragmentation of the internal market and decrease legal certainty for operators that develop or use AI systems. A consistent and high level of protection throughout the Union should therefore be ensured in order to achieve trustworthy AI, while divergences hampering the free circulation of AI systems and related products and services within the internal market should be prevented, by laying down uniform obligations for operatodevelopers, deployers and users 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.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 320 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
(3) Artificial intelligence is a fast evolving family of technologies that can contribute to a wide array of economic and societal benefits across the entire spectrum of industries and social activities if developed in accordance with relevant ethical principles. By improving prediction, optimising operations and resource allocation, and personalising digital solutions available for individuals and organisations, the use of artificial intelligence can provide key competitive advantages to companies and support socially and environmentally beneficial outcomes, for example in healthcare, farming, education and training, infrastructure management, energy, transport and logistics, public services, security, justice, resource and energy efficiency, and climate change mitigation and adaptation.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 325 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
(4) At the same time, depending on the circumstances regarding its specific application and use, artificial intelligence may generate risks and cause harm to public interests and rights that are protected by Union law. Such harm might be material or immaterial and might affect one or more persons, a groups of persons or society as a whole.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 325 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2 a (new)
(2 a) However, in line with Article 114(2) TFEU, this Regulation does not affect the rights and interests of employed persons. This Regulation should therefore not affect Community law on social policy and national labour law and practice, that is any legal and contractual provision concerning employment conditions, working conditions, including health and safety at work and the relationship between employers and workers, including information, consultation and participation. This Regulation should not affect the exercise of fundamental rights as recognized in the Member States and at Union level, including the right or freedom to strike or to take other action covered by the specific industrial relations systems in Member States, in accordance with national law and/or practice. Nor should it affect concertation practices, the right to negotiate, to conclude and enforce collective agreement or to take collective action in accordance with national law and/or practice. It should in any case not prevent the Commission from proposing specific legislation on the rights and freedoms of workers affected by AI systems.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 326 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
(5) A Union legal framework laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence based on ethical principles is therefore needed to foster the development, use and uptake of artificial intelligence in the internal market that at the same time meets a high level of protection of public interests, such as health and safety, the environment and the protection of fundamental rights and values, including democracy and the rule of law, as recognised and protected by Union law. To achieve that objective, rules regulating the development, the placing on the market and putting into service of certain AI systems should be laid down, thus ensuring the smooth functioning of the internal market and allowing those systems to benefit from the principle of free movement of goods and services. By laying down those rules, this Regulation supports the objective of the Union of being a global leader in the development of secure, trustworthy and ethical artificial intelligence, as stated by the European Council33 , and it ensures the protection of ethical principles, as specifically requested by the European Parliament34 . _________________ 33 European Council, Special meeting of the European Council (1 and 2 October 2020) – Conclusions, EUCO 13/20, 2020, p. 6. 34 European Parliament resolution of 20 October 2020 with recommendations to the Commission on a framework of ethical aspects of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, 2020/2012(INL).
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 327 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
(6) The notion of AI system should be clearly defined to ensure legal certainty, while providing the flexibility to accommodate future technological developments. The definition should be based on the key functional characteristics of the software, in particular the ability, for a given set of human-defined objectives, to generate outputs such as content, predictions, recommendations, or decisions which influence the environment with which the system interacts, be it in a physical or digital dimension. AI systems can be designed to operate with varying levels of autonomy and be used on a stand- alone basis or as a component of a product, irrespective of whether the system is physically integrated into the product (embedded) or serve the functionality of the product without being integrated therein (non-embedded). The definition of AI system should be complemented by a list of specific techniques and approaches used for its development, which should be kept up-to–date in the light of market and technological developments through the adoption of delegated acts by the Commission to amend that list.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 335 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
(13) In order to ensure a consistent and high level of protection of public interests as regards health, safety, the environment and fundamental rights, and values such as democracy and the rule of law, a set of ethical principles and common normative standards for all high-risk AI systems should be established. Those principles and standards should be consistent with the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union (the Charter), the European Green Deal (The Green Deal) and the Joint Declaration on Digital Rights of the Union (the Declaration) and should be non-discriminatory and in line with the Union’s international trade commitments.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 338 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4 a (new)
(4 a) In order to ensure the dual green and digital transition, and secure the technological resilience of the EU, to reduce the carbon footprint of artificial intelligence and achieve the objectives of the new European Green Deal, this Regulation should contribute to the promotion of a green and sustainable artificial intelligence and to the consideration of the environmental impact of AI systems throughout their lifecycle. Sustainability should be at the core at the European artificial intelligence framework to guarantee that the development of artificial intelligence is compatible with sustainable development of environmental resources for current and future generations, at all stages of the lifecycle of artificial intelligence products; sustainability of artificial intelligence should encompass sustainable data sources, data centres, resource use, power supplies and infrastructure;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 339 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
(14) In order to introduce a proportionate and effective set of binding rules based on ethical principles for AI systems, a clearly defined risk- based approach should be followed. That approach should tailor the type and content of such rules to the intensity and scope of the risks that AI systems can generate. It is therefore necessary to prohibit certain artificial intelligence practices, to lay down requirements for high-risk AI systems and obligations for the relevant operators, and to lay down transparency obligations for certain AI systems. With regard to transparency and human oversight obligations, Member States should be able to adopt further national measures to complement them without changing their harmonising nature.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 340 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14 a (new)
(14a) Without prejudice to tailoring rules to the intensity and scope of the risks that AI systems can generate, or to the specific requirements laid down for high-risk AI systems, all AI systems developed, deployed or used in the Union should respect not only Union and national law but also a specific set of ethical principles that are aligned with the values enshrined in Union law and that are in part, concretely reflected in the specific requirements to be complied with by high-risk AI systems. That set of principles should, inter alia, also be reflected in codes of conduct that should be mandatory for the development, deployment and use of all AI systems. Accordingly, any research carried out with the purpose of attaining AI-based solutions that strengthen the respect for those principles, in particular those of social responsibility and environmental sustainability, should be encouraged by the Commission and the Member States.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 341 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14 b (new)
(14b) AI literacy’ refers to skills, knowledge and understanding that allows both citizens more generally and developers, deployers and users in the context of the obligations set out in this Regulation to make an informed deployment and use of AI systems, as well as to gain awareness about the opportunities and risks of AI and thereby promote its democratic control. AI literacy should not be limited to learning about tools and technologies, but should also aim to equip citizens more generally and developers, deployers and users in the context of the obligations set out in this Regulation with the critical thinking skills required to identify harmful or manipulative uses as well as to improve their agency and their ability to fully comply with and benefit from trustworthy AI. It is therefore necessary that the Commission, the Member States as well as developers and deployers of AI systems, in cooperation with all relevant stakeholders, promote the development of AI literacy, in all sectors of society, for citizens of all ages, including women and girls, and that progress in that regard is closely followed .
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 342 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4 b (new)
(4 b) Despite the high potential of solutions to the environmental and climate crisis offered by artificial intelligence, the design, training and execution of algorithms imply a high energy consumption and, consequently, high levels of carbon emissions. Artificial intelligence technologies and data centres have a high carbon footprint due to increased computational energy consumption, and high energy costs due to the volume of data stored and the amount of heat, electric and electronic waste generated, thus resulting in increased pollution. These environmental and carbon footprints are expected to increase overtime as the volume of data transferred and stored and the increasing development of artificial intelligence applications will continue to grow exponentially in the years to come. It is therefore important to minimise the climate and environmental footprint of artificial intelligence and related technologies and that AI systems and associated machinery are designed sustainably to reduce resource usage and energy consumption, thereby limiting the risks to the environment.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 343 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
(15) Aside from the many beneficial uses of artificial intelligence, that technology can also be misused and provide novel and powerful tools for manipulative, exploitative and social control practices. Such practices are particularly harmful and should be prohibited because they contradict Union values of respect for human dignity, freedom, equality, democracy and the rule of law and Union fundamental rights, including the right to non-discrimination, data protection and privacy, gender equality and the rights of the child.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 343 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4 c (new)
(4 c) To promote the sustainable development of AI systems and in particular to prioritise the need for sustainable, energy efficient data centres, requirements for efficient heating and cooling of data centres should be consistent with the long-term climate and environmental standards and priorities of the Union and comply with the principle of 'do no significant harm' within the meaning of Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment, and should be fully decarbonised by January 2050. In this regard, Member States and telecommunications providers should collect and publish information relating to the energy performance and environmental footprint for artificial intelligence technologies and date centres including information on the energy efficiency of algorithms to establish a sustainability indicator for artificial intelligence technologies. A European code of conduct for datacentre energy efficiency can establish key sustainability indicators to measure four basic dimensions of a sustainable data centre, namely, how efficiently it uses energy, the proportion of energy generated from renewable energy sources, the reuse of any waste and heat, and the usage of fresh water.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 344 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
(16) The placing on the market, putting into servicedevelopment, deployment or use of certain AI systems intendused to distort human behaviour, whereby physical or psychological harms are likely to occur, should be forbidden. Such AI systems deploy subliminal components individuals cannot perceive or exploit vulnerabilities of children and people due to their age, physical or mental incapacities. They do so with the intention toby materially distorting the behaviour of a person and in a manner that causes or is likely to cause harm to that or another person. The intention may not be presumed if the distortion of human behaviour results from factors external to the AI system which are outside of the control of the provider or the user. Research for legitimate purposes in relation to such AI systems should not be stifled by the prohibition, if such research does not amount to use of the AI system in human- machine relations that exposes natural persons to harm and such research is carried out in accordance with recognised ethical standards for scientific research.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 345 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
(5) A Union legal framework laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence is therefore needed to foster the development, use and uptake of artificial intelligence in the internal market that at the same time meets a high level of protection of public interests, such as health and safety and, the protection of fundamental rights, as recognised and protected by Union law, the environment and the Union values enshrined in Article 2 TEU. To achieve that objective, rules regulating the development, the placing on the market, and the putting into service and the use of certain AI systems should be laid down, thus ensuring the smooth functioning of the internal market and allowing those systems to benefit from the principle of free movement of goods and services. By laying down those rules, this Regulation supports the objective of the Union of being a global leader in the development of secure, trustworthy and ethical artificial intelligence, as stated by the European Council33 , and it ensures the protection of ethical principles, as specifically requested by the European Parliament34 . _________________ 33 European Council, Special meeting of the European Council (1 and 2 October 2020) – Conclusions, EUCO 13/20, 2020, p. 6. 34 European Parliament resolution of 20 October 2020 with recommendations to the Commission on a framework of ethical aspects of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, 2020/2012(INL).
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 360 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
(6) The notion of AI system should be clearly defined to ensure legal certainty, while providing the flexibility to accommodate future technological developments. The definition should be based on the key functional characteristics of the software, in particular the ability, for a given set of human-defined objectives, to generate outputs such as content, predictions, recommendations, or decisions which influence the environment with which the system interacts, be it in a physical or digital dimension. AI systems can be designed to operate with varying levels of autonomy and be used on a stand- alone basis or as a component of a product, irrespective of whether the system is physically integrated into the product (embedded) or serve the functionality of the product without being integrated therein (non-embedded). The definition of AI system should be complemented by a list of specific techniques and approaches used for its development, which should be kept up-to–date in the light of market and technological developments through the adoption of delegated acts by the Commission to amend that list. AI systems can be developed through various techniques using learning, reasoning or modelling, such as: machine learning approaches, including supervised, unsupervised and reinforcement learning, using a wide variety of methods including deep learning; logic- and knowledge-based approaches, including knowledge representation, inductive (logic) programming, knowledge bases, inference and deductive engines, (symbolic) reasoning and expert systems; statistical approaches, Bayesian estimation, search and optimization methods.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 364 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27
(27) High-risk AI systems should only be placed on the Union market or put into servicedeveloped and deployed if they comply with certain mandatory requirements based on ethical principles. 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, democracy and the rule of law, 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, the environment, and fundamental rights of persons in the Union and such limitation minimises any potential restriction to international trade, if any, democracy and the rule of law in the Union.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 365 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28
(28) AI systems could produce adverse outcomes to health and safety of persons, in particular when such systems operate as components of products. Consistently with the objectives of Union harmonisation legislation to facilitate the free movement of products in the internal market and to ensure that only safe and otherwise compliant products find their way into the market, it is important that the safety risks that may be generated by a product as a whole due to its digital components, including AI systems, are duly prevented and mitigated. For instance, increasingly autonomous robots, whether in the context of manufacturing or personal assistance and care should be able to safely operate and performs their functions in complex environments. Similarly, in the health sector where the stakes for life and health are particularly high, increasingly sophisticated diagnostics systems and systems supporting human decisions should be reliable and accurate. The extent of the adverse impact caused by the AI system on the fundamental rights protected by the Charter is of particular relevance when classifying an AI system as high-risk. Those rights include the right to human dignity, respect for private and family life, protection of personal data, freedom of expression and information, freedom of assembly and of association, and non- discrimination, education, consumer protection, workers’ rights, gender equality, rights of persons with disabilities, right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, right of defence and the presumption of innocence, right to good administration, right to protection of intellectual property, cultural diversity. In addition to those rights, it is important to highlight that children have specific rights as enshrined in Article 24 of the EU Charter and in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (further elaborated in the UNCRC General Comment No. 25 as regards the digital environment), both of which require consideration of the children’s vulnerabilities and provision of such protection and care as necessary for their well-being. The fundamental right to a high level of environmental protection enshrined in the Charter and implemented in Union policies should also be considered when assessing the severity of the harm that an AI system can cause, including in relation to the health and safety of persons or to the environment, due to the extraction and consumption of natural resources, waste and the carbon footprint.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 368 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32
(32) As regards stand-alone AI systems, meaning high-risk AI systems other than those that are safety components of products, or which are themselves products, it is appropriate to classify them as high-risk if, in the light of their intended purpose, they pose a high risk of harm to the health and safety or the fundamental rights of persons, taking into account both the severity of the possible harm and its probability of occurrence and they are used in a number of specifically pre- defined areas specified in the Regulation. The identification of those systems is based on the same methodology and criteria envisaged also for any future amendments of the list of high-risk AI systems.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 372 #
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.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 375 #
(35) AI systems used in education or vocational training, notably for determining access or assigning persons to educational and vocational training institutions or to evaluate persons on tests as part of or as a precondition for their education should be considered high-risk, since they may determine the educational and professional course of a person’s life and therefore affect their ability to secure their livelihood. When improperly designed, developed and used, such systems may violate the right to education and training as well as the rights to gender equality and to not to be discriminated against and perpetuate historical patterns of discrimination.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 377 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 36
(36) AI systems used in employment, workers management and access to self- employment, notably for the recruitment and selection of persons, for making decisions on promotion and termination and for task allocation, monitoring or evaluation of persons in work-related contractual relationships, should also be classified as high-risk, since those systems may appreciably impact the health, safety and security rules applicable in their work and at their workplaces and 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. In this regard, specific requirements on transparency, information and human oversight should apply. Trade unions and workers representatives should be informed and they should have access to any documentation created under this Regulation for any AI system deployed or used in their work or at their workplace.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 382 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
(9) For the purposes of this Regulation the notion of publicly accessible space should be understood as referring to any physical place that is accessible to the public, irrespective of whether the place in question is privately or publicly owned. Therefore, the notion does not cover places that are private in nature and normally not freely accessible for third parties, including law enforcement authorities, unless those parties have been specifically invited or authorised, such as homes, private clubs, offices, warehouses and factories. Online spaces are not covered either, as they are not physical spaces. However, the mere fact that certain conditions for accessing a particular space may apply, such as admission tickets or age restrictions, does not mean that the space is not publicly accessible within the meaning of this Regulation. Consequently, in addition to public spaces such as streets, relevant parts of government buildings and most transport infrastructure, spaces such as cinemas, theatres, shops and shopping centres are normally also publicly accessible. Whether a given space is accessible to the public should however be determined on a case-by-case basis, having regard to the specificities of the individual situation at hand.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 390 #
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.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 391 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 43
(43) Requirements should apply to high- risk AI systems as regards the quality of data sets used, technical documentation and record-keeping, transparency and the provision of information to users, human oversight, and robustness, accuracy and cybersecurity. Those requirements are necessary to effectively mitigate the risks for health, safety and fundamental rights, as applicable in the light of the intended purpose of the system, and no other less trade restrictive measures are reasonably available, thus avoiding unjustified restrictions to trade.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 393 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 46
(46) Having comprehensible information on how high- risk AI systems have been developed and how they perform throughout their lifecycle is essential to verify compliance with the requirements under this Regulation and to allow users to make informed and autonomous decisions about their use. This requires keeping records and the availability of a technical documentation, containing information which is necessary to assess the compliance of the AI system with the relevant requirements. Such information should include the general characteristics, capabilities and limitations of the system, algorithmsnamely with regard to the extraction and consumption of natural resources, algorithms and any pre- determined changes on it and its performance, data, training, testing and validation processes used as well as documentation on the relevant risk management system and on the entity that carried out the conformity assessment. The technical documentation should be kept up to date.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 395 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 47
(47) To address the opacity that may make certain AI systems incomprehensible to or too complex for natural persons, a certainsufficient degree of transparency should be required for high-risk AI systems. Users should be able to easily interpret the system output and use it appropriately. High-risk AI systems should therefore be accompanied by relevant documentation and instructions of use and include concise and clear information, including in relation to possible risks to fundamental rights and discrimination, where appropriate. . The same applies to AI systems with general purposes that may have high-risk uses that are not forbidden by their developer. In such cases, sufficient information should be made available allowing deployers to carry out tests and analysis on performance, data and usage. The systems and information should also be registered in the EU database for stand-alone high-risk AI systems foreseen in Article 60 of this Regulation.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 395 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
(12) This Regulation should also apply to Union institutions, offices, bodies and agencies when acting as a provider or user of an AI system. AI systems exclusively developed or used for military purposes should be excluded from the scope of this Regulation where that use falls under the exclusive remit of the Common Foreign and Security Policy regulated under Title V of the Treaty on the European Union (TEU). This Regulation should be without prejudice to the provisions regarding the liability of intermediary service providers set out in Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council [as amended by the Digital Services Act].
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 398 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 48
(48) High-risk AI systems should be designed and developed in such a way that natural persons can overseehave agency over them by being able to oversee and control their functioning. For this purpose, appropriate human oversight measures should be identified by the provider of the system before its placing on the market or putting into service. In particular, where appropriate and at the very least where decisions based solely on the automated processing enabled by such systems produce legal or otherwise significant effects, such measures should guarantee that the system is subject to in- built operational constraints that cannot be overridden by the system itself and is responsive to the human operator, and that the natural persons to whom human oversight has been assigned have the necessary competence, training and authority to carry out that role.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 401 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 49
(49) High-risk AI systems should perform consistently throughout their lifecycle and meet an appropriate level of accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity in accordance with the generally acknowledged state of the art. The level of accuracy and accuracy metrics should be communicated to thein an intelligible manner to the deployers and users.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 402 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12 a (new)
(12 a) AI systems developed or used exclusively for military purposes should be excluded from the scope of this Regulation where that use falls under the exclusive remit of the Common Foreign and Security Policy regulated under Title V TEU. However, AI systems which are developed or used for military purposes but can also be used for civil purposes, falling under the definition of “dual use items” pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2021/821 of the European Parliament and of the Council1ashould fall into the scope of this Regulation. _________________ 1a Regulation (EU) 2021/821 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2021 setting up a Union regime for the control of exports, brokering, technical assistance, transit and transfer of dual-use items (OJ L 206 11.6.2021, p. 1).
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 405 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12 b (new)
(12 b) This Regulation should not affect the provisions aimed at improving working conditions in platform work set out in Directive 2021/762/EC.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 409 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 64
(64) Given the more extensive experience of professional pre-market certifiers in the field of product safety and the different nature of risks involved, it is appropriate to limit, at least in an initial phaseduring the first year of application of this Regulation, the scope of application of third-party conformity assessment for high-risk AI systems other than those related to products. Therefore, the conformity assessment of such systems should be carried out as a general rule by the provider under its own responsibility, with the only exception of AI systems intended to be used for the remote biometric identification of persons, for which the involvement of a notified body in the conformity assessment should be foreseen, to the extent they are not prohibited.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 409 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
(13) In order to ensure a consistent and high level of protection of public interests as regards health, safety and fundamental rights, the environment and the Union values enshrined in Article 2 TEU, common normative standards for all high- risk AI systems should be established. Those standards should be consistent with the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union (the Charter) and should be non-discriminatory and in line with the Union’s international trade commitments.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 413 #
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 and ethically justified 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.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 414 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
(14) In order to introduce a proportionate and effective set of binding rules for AI systems, a clearly defined risk- based approach should be followed. That approach should tailor the type and content of such rules to the intensity and scope of the risks that AI systems can generate. It is therefore necessary to prohibit certain unacceptable artificial intelligence practices, to lay down requirements for high-risk AI systems and obligations for the relevant operators, and to lay down transparency obligations for certain AI systems.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 415 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 70
(70) Certain AI systems intendused to interact with natural persons or to generate content may pose specific risks of impersonation or deception irrespective of whether they qualify as high-risk or not. In certain circumstances, the use of these systems should therefore be subject to specific transparency obligations without prejudice to the requirements and obligations for high-risk AI systems. In particular, natural persons should be notified that they are interacting with an AI system, unless this is obvious from the circumstances and the context of use. Moreover, natural persons should be notified when they are exposed to an emotion recognition system or a biometric categorisation system. Such information and notifications, which should include a disclaimer, should be provided in accessible formats for children, the elderly, migrants and persons with disabilities. Further, users, who use an AI system to generate or manipulate image, audio or video content that appreciably resembles existing persons, places or events and would falsely appear to a person to be authentic, should disclose that the content has been artificially created or manipulated by labelling the artificial intelligence output accordingly and disclosing its artificial origin, namely the name of the person or entity that created it.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 416 #
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 ethical 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.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 417 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 72
(72) The objectives of the regulatory sandboxes should be to foster AI innovation by establishing a controlled experimentation and testing environment in the development and pre-marketing phase with a view to ensuring compliance of the innovative AI systems with this Regulation and other relevant Union and Member States legislation; to enhance legal certainty for innovators and the competent authorities’ oversight and understanding of the opportunities, emerging risks and the impacts of AI use, and to accelerate access to markets, including by removing barriers for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and start-ups; to contribute to the development of ethical, socially responsible and environmentally sustainable AI systems, in line with the ethical principles outlined in this Regulation. To ensure uniform implementation across the Union and economies of scale, it is appropriate to establish common rules for the regulatory sandboxes’ implementation and a framework for cooperation between the relevant authorities involved in the supervision of the sandboxes. This Regulation should provide the legal basis for the use of personal data collected for other purposes for developing certain AI systems in the public interest within the AI regulatory sandbox, in line with Article 6(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, and Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, and without prejudice to Article 4(2) of Directive (EU) 2016/680. Participants in the sandbox should ensure appropriate safeguards and cooperate with the competent authorities, including by following their guidance and acting expeditiously and in good faith to mitigate any high-risks to safety and fundamental rights that may arise during the development and experimentation in the sandbox. The conduct of the participants in the sandbox should be taken into account when competent authorities decide whether to impose an administrative fine under Article 83(2) of Regulation 2016/679 and Article 57 of Directive 2016/680.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 419 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 73
(73) In order to promote and protect innovation, it is important that the interests of small-scale providers and users of AI systems are taken into particular account. To this objective, Member States should develop initiatives, which are targeted at those operators, including on AI literacy, awareness raising and information communication. Moreover, the specific interests and needs of small-scale providers shall be taken into account when Notified Bodies set conformity assessment fees. Translation costs related to mandatory documentation and communication with authorities may constitute a significant cost for providers and other operators, notably those of a smaller scale. Member States should possibly ensure that one of the languages determined and accepted by them for relevant providers’ documentation and for communication with operators is one which is broadly understood by the largest possible number of cross-border users.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 420 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 76
(76) In order to facilitate a smooth, effective and harmonised implementation of this and other Regulations a European Agency for Data and Artificial Intelligence Board should be established. The BoardAgency 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 and other present or future legislations, 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.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 421 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15 a (new)
(15 a) As signatories to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), the European Union and all Member States should protect persons with disabilities from discrimination and promote their equality, ensure that persons with disabilities have access, on an equal basis with others, to information and communications technologies and systems and ensure respect for privacy of persons with disabilities.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 423 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 79
(79) In order to ensure an appropriate and effective enforcement of the requirements and obligations set out by this Regulation, which is Union harmonisation legislation, the system of market surveillance and compliance of products established by Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 should apply in its entirety. Where necessary for their mandate, national public authorities or bodies, which supervise the application of Union law protecting fundamental rights, including equality bodies, should also have access to any documentation created under this Regulation. Where appropriate, national authorities or bodies, which supervise the application of Union law or national law compatible with union law establishing rules regulating the health, safety, security and environment at work, should also have access to any documentation created under this Regulation.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 425 #
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, socially responsible and environmentally sustainable 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. 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 deDevelopers and deployers of all AI systems should also draw up codes of conduct in order to ensure and demonstrate compliance with the ethical principles underpinning trustworthy AI as outlined in paragraph 2 of Article 4a. The Commissigon and development of AI systems, and diversity of the development teams. The Commissionthe European Agency for Data and Artificial Intelligence 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.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 427 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 83
(83) In order to ensure trustful and constructive cooperation of competent authorities on Union and national level, all parties involved in the application of this Regulation should respect the confidentiality and property of information and data obtained in carrying out their tasks.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 427 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
(16) The placing on the market, putting into service or use of certain AI systems intended towith the effect or likely effect of distorting human behaviour, whereby material or non-material harm, including physical or, psychological or economic harms are likely to occur, should be forbidden. This limitation should be understood to include neuro-technologies assisted by AI systems that are used to monitor, use, or influence neural data gathered through brain- computer interfaces. Such AI systems deploy subliminal components individuals cannot perceive or exploit vulnerabilities of children and people due to their age, physical or mental incapacities. They do so with the intention toeffect of materially distorting the behaviour of a person and in a manner that causes or is likely to cause harm to that or another person. The intention may not be presumed if the distortion of human behaviour results from factors external to the AI system which are outside of the control of the provider or the user. Research for legitimate purposes in relation to such AI systems should not be stifled by the prohibition, if such research does not amount to use of the AI system in human- machine relations that exposes natural persons to harm and such research is carried out in accordance with recognised ethical standards for scientific research.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 428 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 84
(84) Member States should take all necessary measures to ensure that the provisions of this Regulation are implemented, including by laying down effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties for their infringement. For certain specific infringements, Member States should take into account the margins and criteria set out in this Regulation. The European Data Protection SupervisorAgency for Data and Artificial Intelligence should have the power to impose fines on Union institutions, agencies and bodies falling within the scope of this Regulation.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 433 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
(17) AI systems providing social scoring of natural persons for general purpose by private or public authorities or on their behalf may lead to discriminatory outcomes and the exclusion of certain groups. They may violate the right to dignity and non- discrimination and the values of equality and justice. Such AI systems evaluate or classify the trustworthiness of natural persons based on their social behaviour in multiple contexts or known or predicted personal or personality characteristics. The social score obtained from such AI systems may lead to the detrimental or unfavourable treatment of natural persons or whole groups thereof in social contexts, which are unrelated to the context in which the data was originally generated or collected or to a detrimental treatment that is disproportionate or unjustified to the gravity of their social behaviour. Such AI systems should be therefore prohibited.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 434 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) harmonised rules for the placing on the market, the putting into servicedevelopment, deployment and the use of artificial intelligence systems (‘AI systems’) in the Union;
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 436 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) harmonised transparency rules for certain AI systems intended to interact with natural persons, emotion recognition systems and biometric categorisation systems, and AI systems used to generate or manipulate image, audio or video content;
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 439 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point e a (new)
(ea) rules on governance
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 440 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point e b (new)
(eb) rules for the establishment of an European Agency for Data and Artificial Intelligence.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 441 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 a (new)
In order to protect public interests such as health, safety, the environment, fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law, Member States may establish national provisions focusing on certain aspects of use of AI systems that build upon and complement but do not replace, circumvent or contradict the harmonised framework laid down by this Regulation.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 442 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17 a (new)
(17 a) AI systems used by law enforcement authorities or on their behalf to predict the probability of a natural person to offend or to reoffend, based on profiling and individual or place-based risk-assessment hold a particular risk of discrimination against certain persons or groups of persons, as they violate human dignity as well as the key legal principle of presumption of innocence. Such AI systems should therefore be prohibited.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 443 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) providdevelopers and deployers placing on the market or putting into service AI systems in the Union, irrespective of whether those providers are established within the Union or in a third country;
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 444 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
(aa) developers and deployers established or located within the Union for the placing on the market or putting into service AI systems or when the output produced by the system is used in a third country
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 446 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) providdevelopers, deployers and users of AI systems that are located in a third country, where the output produced by the system is used in the Union;
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 448 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
(18) The use of AI systems for ‘real- time’ remote biometric identification of natural persons in publicly or privately accessible spaces for the purpose of law enforcement is consideredis 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 activitiesSuch systems should therefore be prohibited.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 454 #
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. In the framework of those agreements, no EU public authority nor any Member State shall obtain, or otherwise make use of, any AI system that is prohibited or limited under this Regulation, unless safeguards similar to the ones established in this provision are adopted by those authorities or organisations
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 459 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. This Regulation shall be without prejudice to Union and national laws on social policies.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 463 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 1
(1) ‘artificial intelligence system’ (AI system) means software that is developed with one or more of the techniquescan, in and approaches listed in Annex I and canutomated manner, for a given set of human-defined objectives, generate outputs such as content, predictions, recommendations, or decisions influencing the environments they interact with;
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 466 #
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 467 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2
(2) ‘providdeveloper’ means a natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body that develops an AI system or that has an AI system developed with a view to placing it on the market or putting it into service under its own name or trademark, whether for payment or free of charge, or that adapts a general purpose AI system to a specific purpose and use;
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 469 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new)
(3a) ‘deployer’ means any natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body putting into service an AI system developed by another entity without substantial modification, or using an AI system under its authority,
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 470 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 4
(4) ‘user’ means any natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body using an AI system under itsthe authority, except where the AI system is used in the course of a personal non- professional activity; of a deployer
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 472 #
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 476 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 8
(8) ‘operator’ means the providdeveloper, the deployer, the user, the authorised representative, the importer and the distributor;
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 478 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 12
(12) ‘intended purpose’ means the use for which an AI system is intendused by the provider, including the specific context and conditions of use, as specified in the information supplied by the provider in the instructions for use, promotional or sales materials and statements, as well as in the technical documentation;
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 490 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 39
(39) ‘publicly accessible space’ means any physical or virtual place accessible to the public, regardless of whether certain conditions for access may apply;
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 491 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 39 a (new)
(39a) 'social scoring' means the evaluation or categorisation of citizens based on their behaviour or personal characteristics;
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 491 #
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 493 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 42
(42) ‘national supervisory authority’ means the authority to which a Member State assigns the responsibility for the implementation and application of this Regulation, for coordinating the activities entrusted to that Member State, for acting as the single contact point for the Commission, and for representing the Member State at the European Artificial Intelligence Boardgency for Data and AI (EADA);
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 495 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 – point a
(a) the death of a person or serious damage to a person’s fundamental rights, health, to property or the environment, to democracy or the democratic rule of law,
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 497 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 a (new)
(44a) 'AI literacy' means the skills, knowledge and understanding regarding AI systems that raises are necessary for the compliance with and enforcement of this Regulation
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 500 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1
The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 73 to amend the list of techniques and approaches listed in Annex I, in order to update that list to market and technological developments on the basis of characteristics that are similar to the techniques and approaches listed therein.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 501 #
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 502 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 a (new)
Article 4 a Trustworthy AI 1. All AI systems in the Union shall be developed, deployed and used in full respect of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. 2. In view of promoting trustworthy AI in the Union, and without prejudice to the requirements set out in Title III for high- risk AI systems, all AI systems shall be developed, deployed and used: (a) in a lawful, fair and transparent manner (‘lawfulness, fairness and transparency’); (b) in a manner that ensures that natural persons shall always be able to make informed decisions regarding such systems and these shall never undermine or override human autonomy (‘human agency and oversight’); (c) in a manner that ensures their safe, accurate and reliable performance, with embedded safeguards to prevent any kind of individual or collective harm (‘safety, accuracy, reliability and robustness’); (d) in a manner that guarantees privacy and data protection (‘privacy’); (e) in a manner that privileges the integrity and quality of data, including with regard to access (‘data governance’); (f) in a traceable, auditable and explainable manner that ensures responsibility and accountability for their outcomes and supports redress (‘traceability, auditability, explainability and accountability’); (g) in a manner that does not discriminate against persons or groups of persons on the basis of unfair bias and that includes, to that end, the participation and input of relevant stakeholders(‘non-discrimination and diversity’); (h) in an environmentally sustainable manner that minimises their environmental footprint, including with regard to the extraction and consumption of natural resources (‘environmental sustainability’); (i) in a socially responsible manner that minimises their negative societal impact, especially with regard to social and gender inequalities and democratic processes (‘social responsibility’); 3. In view of promoting trustworthy AI in the Union, any person or groups of persons affected by the use of an AI system shall have the right to an explanation in accordance with New Article 71, as well as the right to object to an automated decision made solely by an AI system, or relying to a significant degree on the output of an AI system, which produces legal or similarly significant effects concerning them. These rights are without prejudice to Article 22 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. 4. The ethical principles underpinning trustworthy AI as described in paragraph 2 shall be taken into account by European Standardisation Organisations as outcome-based objectives when they develop harmonised standards for AI systems as referred to in Article 40(2b) and by the European Commission when developing common specifications as referred to in Article 41. 5. Developers and deployers shall specify in the mandatory Codes of Conduct referred to in Article 69, how these principles are taken into account in the course of their activities. For AI systems other than high-risk, developers and deployers should outline any concrete measures implemented to ensure respect for those principles. This obligation is without prejudice to the voluntary application to AI systems other than high- risk of the requirements set out in Title III. 6. In order to demonstrate compliance with this Article, developers and deployers shall, in addition to the obligations set out in paragraphs 5 and after drafting their codes of conduct, complete a trustworthy AI technology assessment. For high-risk AI systems, this assessment shall be part of the requirements under Article 16(a) and 29(4).
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 505 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 b (new)
Article 4 b AI literacy 1. When implementing this Regulation, the Union and the Member States shall promote measures and tools for the development of a sufficient level of AI literacy, across sectors and groups of developers, deployers and users concerned, including through education and training, skilling and reskilling programmes and while ensuring a proper gender and age balance, in view of allowing a democratic control of AI systems. 2. Developers and deployers of AI systems shall promote tools and take measures to ensure a sufficient level of AI literacy of their staff and any other persons dealing with the operation and use of AI systems on their behalf, taking into account their technical knowledge, experience, education and training and the environment the AI systems are to be used in, and considering the persons or groups of persons on which the AI systems are to be used. 3. Such literacy tools and measures shall consist, in particular, of the teaching and learning of basic notions and skills about AI systems and their functioning, including the different types of products and uses, their risks and benefits and the severity of the possible harm they can cause and its probability of occurrence. 4. A sufficient level of AI literacy is one that contributes to the ability of developers, deployers and users to fully comply with and benefit from trustworthy AI, and in particular with the requirements laid down in this Regulation in Articles 13, 14, 29, 52 and 69.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 509 #
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.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 516 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25
(25) In accordance with Article 6a of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, as annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, Ireland is not bound by the rules laid down in Article 5(1), point (d), (2) and (3) of this Regulation adopted on the basis of Article 16 of the TFEU which relate to the processing of personal data by the Member States when carrying out activities falling within the scope of Chapter 4 or Chapter 5 of Title V of Part Three of the TFEU, where Ireland is not bound by the rules governing the forms of judicial cooperation in criminal matters or police cooperation which require compliance with the provisions laid down on the basis of Article 16 of the TFEU.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 517 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26
(26) In accordance with Articles 2 and 2a of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark, annexed to the TEU and TFEU, Denmark is not bound by rules laid down in Article 5(1), point (d), (2) and (3) of this Regulation adopted on the basis of Article 16 of the TFEU, or subject to their application, which relate to the processing of personal data by the Member States when carrying out activities falling within the scope of Chapter 4 or Chapter 5 of Title V of Part Three of the TFEU.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 518 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26 a (new)
(26 a) AI systems capable of reading facial expressions to infer emotional states hold no scientific basis, while at the same time running a high risk of inaccuracy, in particular for certain groups of individuals whose facial traits are not easily readable by such systems, as several examples have shown. Therefore, due to the particular risk of discrimination, these systems should be prohibited.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 525 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27
(27) High-risk AI systems should only be placed on the Union market or put into service or used if they comply with certain mandatory requirements. Those requirements should ensure that high-risk AI systems available in the Union or whose output is otherwise used in the Union do not pose unacceptable risks to important Union public interests as recognised and protected by Union law and do not contravene the Union values enshrined in Article 2 TEU. AI systems identified as high-risk should be limited to those that have a significant harmful impact on the health, safety and the fundamental rights of persons in the Union or the environment and such limitation minimises any potential restriction to international trade, if any.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 545 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33
(33) Technical inaccuracies of AI systems intended for the remote biometric identification of natural persons can lead to biased results and entail discriminatory effects. This is particularly relevant when it comes to age, ethnicity, sex or disabilities. Therefore, ‘real-time’ and ‘post’ remote biometric identification systems should be classified as high-risk. In view of the risks that they pose, both types of remote biometric identification systems should be subject to specific requirements on logging capabilities and human oversight.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 558 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. The prohibitions under this Article are without prejudice to other prohibitions that may apply where an artificial intelligence practice violates Union and national laws, including data protection law, non-discrimination law, consumer protection law, and competition law.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 559 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 35
(35) AI systems used in education or vocational training, notably for determining access or assigning persons to educational and vocational training institutions or to evaluate or monitor persons on tests as part of or as a precondition for their education should be considered high-risk, since they may determine the educational and professional course of a person’s life and therefore affect their ability to secure their livelihood. When improperly designed and used, such systems may violate the right to education and training as well as the right not to be discriminated against and perpetuate historical patterns of discrimination.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 573 #
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 due to their risk to cause harm to health, safety, the environment, fundamental rights or to democracy and the rule of law.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 576 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 a (new)
Article 6a Preliminary risk self-assessment 1. Deployers shall be required to carry out a preliminary self-assessment in order to assess whether their AI systems fall under the scope of Article 5 or Article 6. 2. In the assessment referred to in paragraph 1, deployers shall include the following elements: (a) description of the AI system, including its purpose, and of the persons or groups of purposes it may impact, as well as of the degree of human agency and oversight over its outcomes; (b) an analysis of the social and economic risks and benefits of the use of the AI system with regard to its purpose, as well as of the existing safeguards concerning the distribution of benefits and costs associated with its use; (c) an assessment of any potential material or immaterial risks of harm, including likelihood and severity, to health, safety, the environment, fundamental rights and to democracy and rule of law, this assessment shall include: (i) existing studies or reports published by national competent authorities about previous evaluations; (ii) whether and to what extent the persons or groups of persons affected by the AI system are dependent on its outcome and could opt-out from it; (iii) whether and to what extent the outcome produced by the AI system is reversible; (iv) whether and to what extent the persons or group of persons affected by the AI system are in a vulnerable position in relation to its deployer, including due to an imbalance of power, knowledge, economic or social circumstances, gender, age, etc. (v) whether and to what extent any misuse of the AI system could have a negative impact on persons, group of persons and society at large; (d) the measures taken to address and mitigate identified risks.3. 3. The European Agency for Data and AI shall provide guidelines for self- assessments according to paragraph 3, as well outline best practices in order to serve as additional support to comply with this Article. National competent authorities shall also provide direct consultation for deployers in this regard. 4. Deployers shall keep a detailed record, including all relevant documentation, of the preliminary self- assessment at the disposal of the national competent authorities during the lifecycle of the AI system. 5. Should the self-assessment conclude that an AI system does not comply with this Regulation, the deployer shall immediately take any necessary measures to ensure compliance with the Regulation. 6. For the purposes of carrying out the trustworthy AI technology assessment foreseen in paragraph 6 to Article 4a, deployers may, in addition to their codes of conduct, use the assessment and documentation required in the Article to carry out that assessment.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 579 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 73, after ensuring adequate consultation with relevant stakeholders and the European Agency for Data and AI, to update the list in Annex III by adding high-risk AI systems where both of the following conditions are fulfilled:
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 581 #
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 offenceon their behalf to detect ‘deep fakes’, for the evaluation of the reliability of evidence in criminal proceedings, 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 584 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the AI systems are intended to be used in any of the areas listed in points 1 to 8 ofon Annex III;
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 585 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the AI systems pose a risk of harm to the environment, health and safety, or a risk of adverse impact on fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law, that is, in respect of its severity and probability of occurrence, equivalent to or greater than the risk of harm or of adverse impact posed by the high-risk AI systems already referred to in Annex III.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 588 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. When assessing for the purposes of paragraph 1 whether an AI system poses a risk of harm to the environment, health and safety or a risk of adverse impact on fundamental rights or democracy and rule of law, that is equivalent to or greater than the risk of harm posed by the high-risk AI systems already referred to in Annex III, the Commission shall take into account the following criteria:
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 588 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 39
(39) AI systems used in migration, asylum and border control management affect people who are often in particularly vulnerable position and who are dependent on the outcome of the actions of the competent public authorities. The accuracy, non-discriminatory nature and transparency of the AI systems used in those contexts are therefore particularly important to guarantee the respect of the fundamental rights of the affected persons, notably their rights to free movement, non- discrimination, protection of private life and personal data, international protection and good administration. It is therefore appropriate to classify as high-risk AI systems intended to be used by the competent public authorities charged with tasks in the fields of migration, asylum and border control management as polygraphs and similar tools or to detect the emotional state of a natural person; for assessing certain risks posed by natural persons entering the territory of a Member State or applying for visa or asylum; for verifying the authenticity of the relevant documents of natural persons; for assisting competent public authorities for the examination of applications for asylum, visa and residence permits and associated complaints with regard to the objective to establish the eligibility of the natural persons applying for a status.; for verifying the authenticity of the relevant documents of natural persons; AI systems in the area of migration, asylum and border control management covered by this Regulation should comply with the relevant procedural requirements set by the Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council49 , the Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council50 and other relevant legislation. _________________ 49 Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ L 180, 29.6.2013, p. 60). 50 Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code) (OJ L 243, 15.9.2009, p. 1).
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 591 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) the intended purpose of the AI system;
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 592 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) the extent to which the use of an AI system has already caused harm to the environment, health and safety or adverse impact on the fundamental rights or democracy and rule of law or has given rise to significant concerns in relation to the materialisation of such harm or adverse impact, as demonstrated by reports or documented allegations submitted to national competent authorities;
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 601 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40 a (new)
(40 a) Certain AI systems should at the same time be subject to transparency requirements and be classified as high- risk AI systems, given their potential to deceive and cause both individual and societal harm. In particular, AI systems that generate deep fakes representing existing persons have the potential to both manipulate the natural persons that are exposed to those deep fakes and harm the persons they are representing or misrepresenting, while AI systems that, based on limited human input, generate complex text such as news articles, opinion articles, novels, scripts and scientific articles have the potential to manipulate, to deceive, or to expose natural persons to built-in biases or inaccuracies. These should not include AI systems intended to translate text, or cases where the content forms part of an evidently artistic, creative or fictional cinematographic and analogous work.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 602 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The risk management system shall consist of a continuous iterative process run throughout the entire lifecycle of a high-risk AI system, requiring regular systematic updating, and in any event when the high-risk AI system is subject to significant changes in its design or purpose. It shall comprise the following steps:
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 605 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point d a (new)
(da) drawing up of the mandatory Codes of Conduct referred to in Article 69 taking into account the ethical principles laid down in new Article 4a.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 609 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point c a (new)
(ca) the provision of a sufficient level of AI literacy as outlined in new Article 4b to deployers and users.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 609 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 41
(41) The fact that an AI system is classified as high risk under this Regulation should not be interpreted as indicating that the use of the system is necessarily lawful under other acts of Union law or under national law compatible with Union law, such as on the protection of personal data, on the use of polygraphs and similar tools or other systems to detect the emotional state of natural persons. Any such use should continue to occur solely in accordance with the applicable requirements resulting from the Charter and from the applicable acts of secondary Union law and national law. This Regulation should not be understood as providing for the legal ground for processing of personal data, including special categories of personal data, where relevant.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 613 #
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, the elderly, migrants or other vulnerable groups.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 614 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1
1. High-risk AI systems which make use of techniques involving the training of models with data shall be developed on the basis of training, validation and testing data sets that meet the quality and fairness criteria referred to in paragraphs 2 to 5.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 619 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point f
(f) examination in view of possible biases, including where data outputs are used as an input for future operations;
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 619 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 43
(43) Requirements should apply to high- risk AI systems as regards the quality of data sets used, technical documentation and record-keeping, transparency and the provision of information to users, human oversight, and robustness, accuracy and cybersecurity. Those requirements are necessary to effectively mitigate the risks for health, safety and, fundamental rights, the environment and the Union values enshrined in Article 2 TEU, as applicable in the light of the intended purpose or reasonably foreseeable use of the system, and no other less trade restrictive measures are reasonably available, thus avoiding unjustified restrictions to trade.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 622 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point g
(g) the identification of any possible data gaps or shortcomings, and how those gaps and shortcomings can be addressed, as well as any other relevant variables.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 624 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point g a (new)
(ga) the purpose and the environment in which the system is to be used;
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 626 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3
3. Training, validation and testing data sets shall be relevant, representative and, to the best extend possible, free of errors and complete. They shall have the appropriate statistical properties, including, where applicable, as regards the persons or groups of persons on which the high-risk AI system is intended to be used. These characteristics of the data sets may be met at the level of individual data sets or a combination thereof. If occasional inaccuracies cannot be avoided, the system shall indicate, to the best extent possible, the likeliness of errors and inaccuracies to deployers and users through appropriate means.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 630 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 4
4. Training, validation and testing data sets shall take into account, to the extent required by the intended purpose, the characteristics or elements that are particular to the specific geographical, behavioural or functional setting within which the high- risk AI system is intended to be used.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 635 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
The technical documentation shall be drawn up, without unduly compromising intellectual property rights or trade secrets, 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.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 636 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1
1. High-risk AI systems shall be designed and developed with capabilities enabling the automatic recording of events (‘logs’) while the high-risk AI systems is operatingthroughout the AI systems lifecycle. Those logging capabilities shall conform to recognised standards or common specifications.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 638 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2
2. The logging capabilities shall ensure a level of traceability of the AI system’s functioning throughout its lifecycle that is appropriate to the intended purpose of the system.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 639 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3
3. In particular, logging capabilities shall enable the monitoring of the operation of the high-risk AI system with respect to the occurrence of situations that may result in the AI system presenting a risk within the meaning of Article 65(1) or lead to a substantial modification, and facilitate the post-market monitoring referred to in Article 61 and the monitoring of the operation of high-risk AI systems referred to in Article 29 (4).
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 643 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1
1. High-risk AI systems shall be designed and developed in such a way to ensure that their operation is sufficiently transparent to enable users todevelopers, deployers, users and other relevant stakeholders to easily interpret the system’s functioning and output and use it appropriately. An appropriate type and degree of transparency shall be ensured on the basis of informed decisions , with a view to achieving compliance with the relevant obligations of the user and of the provider set out in Chapter 3 of this Title.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 644 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 48 a (new)
(48 a) In order to protect natural persons that are developers or users of AI systems against retaliation from their employers and colleagues, and to prevent misconduct or breaches of this Regulation and other relevant Union law, they should have the right to rely on the whistleblower protections set in Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 646 #
1a. Any person or groups of persons subject to a decision taken by a deployer or user on the basis of output from an AI System shall be informed where such decision produces legal or otherwise significant effects, including when their health and safety or the respect for their fundamental rights is affected.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 647 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. In the cases referred to in paragraph 1, the persons or groups of person affected shall have the right to request an explanation in line with New Article 71.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 653 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3 – point a a (new)
(aa) where it is not the same as the deployer, the identity and the contact details of the entity that carried out the conformity assessment and, where applicable, of its authorised representative;
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 656 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3 – point b – point i
(i) its intended purpose;
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 660 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3 – point b – point iii
(iii) any known or foreseeable circumstance, related to the use of the high-risk AI system in accordance with its intended purpose or under conditions of reasonably foreseeable misuse, which may lead to unethical risks to the health and safety or, environment, fundamental rights or democracy and the rule of law;
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 664 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3 – point b – point iv
(iv) its performance as regards the persons or groups of persons on which the system is intended to be used;
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 666 #
(v) when appropriate, specifications for the input data, or any other relevant information in terms of the training, validation and testing data sets used, taking into account the intended purpose of the AI system.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 666 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 58 a (new)
(58 a) Whilst risks related to AI systems can generate from the way such systems are designed, risks can as well stem from how such AI systems are used. Users of high-risk AI system therefore play a critical role in ensuring that fundamental rights are protected, complementing the obligations of the provider when developing the AI system. Users are best placed to understand how the high-risk AI system will be used concretely and can therefore identify potential risks that were not foreseen in the development phase, thanks to a more precise knowledge of the context of use, the people or groups of people likely to be affected, including marginalised and vulnerable groups. In order to efficiently ensure that fundamental rights are protected, the user of high-risk AI systems should therefore carry out a fundamental rights impact assessment on how it intends to use such AI systems, and prior to putting it into use. The impact assessment should be accompanied by a detailed plan describing the measures or tools that will help mitigating the risks to fundamental rights identified. When performing this impact assessment, the user should notify the national supervisory authority, the market surveillance authority as well as relevant stakeholders. It should also involve representatives of groups of persons likely to be affected by the AI system in order to collect relevant information which is deemed necessary to perform the impact assessment.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 667 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3 – point c
(c) the changes to the high-risk AI system and its performance, including its algorithms, which have been pre- determined by the provider at the moment of the initial conformity assessment, if any;
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 668 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3 – point e
(e) the expected lifetime of the high- risk AI system, its level of extraction and consumption of natural resources, and any necessary maintenance and care measures to ensure the proper functioning of that AI system, including as regards software updates.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 670 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. In order to comply with the obligations established in this Article, developers and deployers shall ensure a sufficient level of AI literacy in line with New Article 6.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 671 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Member States may adopt measures beyond those listed in this Article insofar as they are not in contradiction with, result in the circumvention of or otherwise jeopardize the harmonised application of the requirements laid out in this Regulation, irrespective of whether they would apply to high-risk AI systems or all AI systems.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 672 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – title
14 Human agency and oversight
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 674 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1
1. High-risk AI systems shall be designed and developed in such a way, including with appropriate human-machine interface tools, that they can at all times be effectively overseen with agency by natural persons during the period in which the AI system is in use and irrespectively of their specific characteristics.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 676 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2
2. Human oversight shall aim at preventing or minimising theunethical risks to the environment, health, safety or, fundamental rights and democracy or the rule of law that may emerge when a high- risk AI system is used in accordance with its intended purpose or under conditions of reasonably foreseeable misuse, in particular when such risks persist notwithstanding the application of other requirements set out in this Chapter and where decisions based solely on automated processing by AI systems produce legal or otherwise significant effects on the persons or groups of persons on which the system is to be used.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 681 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 64
(64) Given the more extensive experience of professional pre-market certifiers in the field of product safety and the different nature of risks involved, it is appropriate to limit, at least in an initial phase of application of this Regulation, the scope of application of third-party conformity assessment for high-risk AI systems other than those related to products. Therefore, the conformity assessment of such systems should be carried out as a general rule by the provider under its own responsibility, with the only exception of AI systems intended to be used for the remote biometric identification of persons, for which the involvement of a notified body in the conformity assessment should be foreseen, to the extent they are not prohibited.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 685 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 5
5. For high-risk AI systems referred to in point 1(a) of Annex III, the measures referred to in paragraph 3 shall be such as to ensure that, in addition, no action or decision is taken by the user on the basis of the identification resulting from the system unless this has been verified and confirmed by at least two natural persons with the necessary competence, training and authority.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 688 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. In order to comply with the obligations established in this Article, developers and deployers shall ensure a sufficient level of AI literacy in line with New Article 6.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 689 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 65
(65) In order to carry out third-party conformity assessment for AI systems intended to be used for the remote biometric identification of personsany of the use- cases listed in Annex III, notified bodies should be designated under this Regulation by the national competent authorities, provided they are compliant with a set of requirements, notably on independence, competence and absence of conflicts of interests.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 710 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. In order to comply with the obligations established in this Article, as well as to be able to justify their possible non-compliance, deployers of high-risk AI systems shall ensure a sufficient level of AI literacy in line with New Article 6.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 714 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 70
(70) Certain AI systems intended to interact with natural persons or to generate content may pose specific risks of impersonation or deception irrespective of whether they qualify as high-risk or not. In certain circumstances, the use of these systems should therefore be subject to specific transparency obligations without prejudice to the requirements and obligations for high-risk AI systems. In particular, natural persons should be notified that they are interacting with an AI system, unless this is obvious from the circumstances and the context of use. Moreover, natural persons should be notified when they are exposed to an emotion recognition system or a biometric categorisation system. Such information and notifications should be provided in accessible formats for persons with disabilities. Further, users, who use an AI system to generate or manipulate image, audio or video content that appreciably resembles existing persons, places or events and would falsely appear to a person to be authentic, should disclose that the content has been artificially created or manipulated by labelling the artificial intelligence output accordingly and disclosing its artificial origin.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 726 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 72
(72) The objectives of the regulatory sandboxes should be to foster AI innovation by establishing a controlled experimentation and testing environment in the development and pre-marketing phase with a view to ensuring compliance of the innovative AI systems with this Regulation and other relevant Union and Member States legislation; to enhance legal certainty for innovators and the competent authorities’ oversight and understanding of the opportunities, emerging risks and the impacts of AI use, and to accelerate access to markets, including by removing barriers for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and start-ups. To ensure uniform implementation across the Union and economies of scale, it is appropriate to establish common rules for the regulatory sandboxes’ implementation and a framework for cooperation between the relevant authorities involved in the supervision of the sandboxes. This Regulation should provide the legal basis for the use of personal data collected for other purposes for developing certain AI systems in the public interest within the AI regulatory sandbox, in line with Article 6(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, and Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, and without prejudice to Article 4(2) of Directive (EU) 2016/680. Participants in the sandbox should ensure appropriate safeguards and cooperate with the competent authorities, including by following their guidance and acting expeditiously and in good faith to mitigate any high-risks to safety and fundamental rights that may arise during the development and experimentation in the sandbox. The conduct of the participants in the sandbox should be taken into account when competent authorities decide whether to impose an administrative fine under Article 83(2) of Regulation 2016/679 and Article 57 of Directive 2016/680.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 728 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 72 a (new)
(72 a) To ensure that Artificial Intelligence leads to socially and environmentally beneficial outcomes, Member States should support and promote research and development of AI in support of socially and environmentally beneficial outcomes by allocating sufficient resources, including public and Union funding, and giving priority access to regulatory sandboxes to projects led by civil society. Such projects should be based on the principle of interdisciplinary cooperation between AI developers, experts on inequality and non- discrimination, accessibility, consumer, environmental, and digital rights, as well as academics.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 741 #
Proposal for a regulation
Title IV
TRANSPARENCY OBLIGATIONS FOR CERTAIN AI SYSTEMS
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 744 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – title
Transparency obligations for certain AI systems
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 746 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 1
1. ProvidDevelopers and deployers shall ensure that AI systems intendused to interact with natural persons are designed and developed in such a way that natural persons are informed, in a timely, clear and intelligible manner that they are interacting with an AI system, unless this is obvious from the circumstances and the context of use. This information shall also include, as appropriate, the functions that are AI enabled, and the rights and processes to allow natural persons to appeal against the application of such AI systems to them. This obligation shall not apply to AI systems authorised by law to detect, prevent, investigate and prosecute criminal offences, unless those systems are available for the public to report a criminal offence.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 752 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. Users of an AI system that generates or manipulates image, audio, text, scripts or video content that appreciably resembles existing persons, objects, places, text, scripts or other entities or events and would falsely appear to a person to be authentic or truthful (‘deep fake’), shall disclose in an appropriate clear and visible manner, that the content has been artificially generated or manipulated, as well as the name of the natural or legal person that generated or manipulated it.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 756 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 80 a (new)
(80 a) Where the national market surveillance authority has not taken measures against an infringement to this Regulation, the Commission should be in possession of all the necessary resources, in terms of staffing, expertise, and financial means, for the performance of its tasks instead of the national market surveillance authority under this Regulation. In order to ensure the availability of the resources necessary for the adequate investigation and enforcement measures that the Commission could undertake under this Regulation, the Commission should charge fees on national market surveillance authorities, the level of which should be established on a case-by-case basis. The overall amount of fees charged should be established on the basis of the overall amount of the costs incurred by the Commission to exercise its investigation and enforcement powers under this Regulation. Such an amount should include costs relating to the exercise of the specific powers and tasks connected to Chapter 4 of Title VIII of this Regulation. The external assigned revenues resulting from the fees could be used to finance additional human resources, such as contractual agents and seconded national experts, and other expenditure related to the fulfilment of these tasks entrusted to the Commission by this Regulation.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 758 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
However, the first subparagraph shall not apply where the use is authorised by law to detectcontent forms part of an evidently artistic, pcrevent, investigate and prosecute criminal offencesative or fictional cinematographic and analogous work, or it is necessary for the exercise of the right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom of the arts and sciences guaranteed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, and subject to appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of third parties.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 759 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
The information referred to in paragraph 1 to 3 shall be provided to the natural persons in a timely, clear and visible manner, at the latest at the time of the first interaction or exposure. Such information shall be made accessible when the exposed natural person is a person with disabilities, a child or from a vulnerable group. It shall be complete, where possible, with intervention or flagging procedures for the exposed natural person taking into account the generally acknowledged state of the art and relevant harmonised standards and common specifications.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 760 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 b (new)
Developers of AI systems with general purposes that are not listed as high-risk in Annex III shall provide relevant information allowing deployers and users to comply with the requirements and obligations set out in Title III of this Regulation. Such systems shall be registered in the EU database set out in Article 60.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 761 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 c (new)
In order to comply with the obligations established in this Article, developers and deployers shall ensure a sufficient level of AI literacy in line with New Article 6.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 765 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 84 a (new)
(84 a) An affected person should also have the right to mandate a not-for-profit body, organisation or association that has been properly constituted in accordance with the law of a Member State, to lodge the complaint on their behalf. To this end, Directive 2020/1828/EC on Representative Actions for the Protection of the Collective Interests of Consumers should be amended to include this Regulation among the provisions of Union law falling under its scope.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 769 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 5
5. Member States’ competent authorities that have established AI regulatory sandboxes shall coordinate their activities and cooperate within the framework of the European Agency for Data and Artificial Intelligence Board. They shall submit annual reports to the BoardAgency and the Commission on the results from the implementation of those scheme, including good practices, lessons learnt and recommendations on their setup and, where relevant, on the application of this Regulation and other Union legislation supervised within the sandbox.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 772 #
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, and the provisions regarding the conformity assessment procedures in Annex VI and VII and the provisions establishing the high-risk AI systems to which the conformity assessment procedure based on assessment of the quality management system and assessment of the technical documentation should apply. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level, and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making58 . In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and the Council receive all documents at the same time as Member States’ experts, and their experts systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts. _________________ 58 OJ L 123, 12.5.2016, p. 1.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 779 #
Proposal for a regulation
Title VI – Chapter 1 – title
1 European Agency for Data and Artificial Intelligence Board(‘EADA’)
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 780 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 56 – title
Establishment of the Europeuropean Agency for Data and Artificial Intelligence Board(‘EADA’)
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 780 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph -1 (new)
-1 The purpose of this Regulation is to ensure a high level of protection of health, safety, fundamental rights, the environment and the Union values enshrined in Article 2 TEU from harmful effects of artificial intelligence systems in the Union while promoting innovation.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 781 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 56 – paragraph 1
1. A European Agency for Data and Artificial Intelligence Board’ (the ‘Board’) is established(the ‘Agency’) is established to promote a trustworthy, effective and competitive internal market for the data and artificial intelligence sectors.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 782 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 56 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The BoardAgency shall provide advice and assistance to the Commission and the Member States, when implementing Union law related to data and artificial intelligence. It shall cooperate with the developers and deployers of AI systems, in order to:
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 783 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 56 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) contribute topromote and support the effective cooperation of the national supervisory authorities and the Commission with regard to matters covered by this Regulation;
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 785 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 56 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)
(ca) assist developers, deployers and users of AI systems to meet the requirements of this Regulation, including those set out in present and future Union legislation, in particular SMEs and start-ups.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 787 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 56 – paragraph 2 – point c b (new)
(cb) issue recommendations and carry out assessments of the compliance by developers and deployers and the enforcement by national supervisory authorities of Articles 70 to 74.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 788 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 56 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. The Agency shall act as a reference point for advice and expertise for Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies as well as for other relevant stakeholders on matters related to data and artificial intelligence.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 790 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
(a a) principles applicable to all AI systems;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 791 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 56 – paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. The Agency shall act as a contact point for persons or groups of persons affected by AI systems when there has been no national enforcement of their rights under Article 70a to 74 or when the AI system affecting or harming them is deployed and used in more than one Member State
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 792 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – title
SMandate and structure of the BoardAgency
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 792 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(c a) harmonised rules on high-risk AI systems to ensure a high level of trustworthiness and protection of fundamental rights, health and safety, the Union values enshrined in Article 2 TEU and the environment;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 793 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph -1 (new)
-1. The Agency shall have a Chair elected by qualified majority among the members of its board. It shall carry out its tasks independently, impartially, transparently and in a timely manner. It shall have a strong mandate, a secretariat as well as sufficient resources and skilled personnel at its disposal for the proper performance of its tasks. The mandate of the Agency shall contain the operational aspects related to the execution of the Agency’s tasks as listed in Article 58.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 795 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 1
1. The BAgency shall establish a board. 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 mayrepresentatives of the European Commission as well as, high level representatives from the European Data Protection Supervisor, the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights and the EU Agency for Cybersecurity. Other national authorities, as well as other Union bodies, offices, agencies and advisory groups shall be invited to the meetings, where the issues discussed are of relevance for them.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 798 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 2
2. The BAgency’s 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 ques, namely with regard to the election of its Chair, by a simple majority of its members, with the assistance of the Agency’s secretariat. The Agency’s secretariat shall convene the meetings and prepare the agenda in accordance with the task of the Agency’s board pursuant with its rules of procedure. The Agency’s secretariat will provide administrative and analytical support for the activities of the board pursuant to this Regulations.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 801 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 3
3. The BoardAgency shall be chaired by the Commission. The Commission shall convene the meetings and pestablish a Permanent Stakeholders' Group composed of experts repare 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 Regulationsenting the relevant stakeholders, such as representatives of developers, deployers and users of AI systems, including SMEs and start-ups, consumer groups, trade unions, fundamental rights organisations and academic experts.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 803 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 4
4. The Board may invite external experts and observers to attend its meetings and may hold exchanges withAgency shall also inform interested third parties to informand citizens on 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.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 805 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – title
Tasks of the BoardAgency
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 806 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
When providing advice and assistance to the Commission in, the context of Article 56(2), the Board shall in particularMember States and in cooperation with the developers, deployers and users of AI systems with regard to the application of this Regulation , the Agency shall:
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 807 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
(aa) promote and support the cooperation among national supervisory authorities and the Commission, and ensure the Union safeguard procedure referred to Article 66;
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 808 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point c – introductory part
(c) issue guidelines, opinions, recommendations or written contributions on matters related to the implementation of this Regulation, in particular
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 809 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point c – point ii a (new)
(iia) on the provisions related to post market monitoring as referred to in Article 61,
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 811 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point c – point iii a (new)
(iiia) on the need for the amendment of each of the Annexes as referred to in Article 73,
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 811 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 a (new)
This Regulation shall be applied taking due account of the precautionary principle.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 814 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(ca) to establish and maintain the EU database for stand-alone high risk AI systems, referred to in Article 60;
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 815 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point c b (new)
(cb) to carry out annual reviews and analysis of the complaints sent to and the findings made by the national competent authorities of the serious incidents report referred to in Article 62;
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 816 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point c c (new)
(cc) to act as the market surveillance authority where Union institutions, agencies and bodies fall within the scope of this Regulation, as referred to in paragraph 6 of Article 63 and Article 72;
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 817 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point c d (new)
(cd) to provide guidance material to developers, deployers and users regarding the compliance with the requirements set out in this Regulation. In particular, it shall issue guidelines: i) for the trustworthy AI technical assessment referred to in paragraph 6 of new Article 4a, ii) for the preliminary risk self-assessment referred to in new Article 5a; iii) for the methods for performing the conformity assessment based on internal control referred to Article 43; iv) to facilitate compliance with the reporting of serious incidents and of malfunctioning referred to in Article 62; v) to facilitate the drawing up of the mandatory Codes of Conduct referred to in Article 69; vi) on any other concrete procedures to be performed by developers, deployers and users when complying with this Regulation, in particular those regarding the documentation to be delivered to notified bodies and methods to provide authorities with other relevant information.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 818 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point c e (new)
(ce) to provide specific guidance to help and alleviate the burden to SMEs, start-ups or small-scale operators, regarding the compliance of the obligations set out in this Regulation;
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 819 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point c f (new)
(cf) to raise awareness and provide guidance material to developers, deployers regarding the compliance with the requirement to put in place tools and measures to ensure a sufficient level of AI literacy in line with new Article 6.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 820 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point c g (new)
(cg) to contribute to the Union efforts to cooperate with third countries and international organisations in view of promoting a common global approach towards trustworthy AI;
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 822 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 59 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall inform the Commission and the Agency of their designation or designations and, where applicable, the reasons for designating more than one authority.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 826 #
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 BoardAgency for discussion and possible recommendations.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 827 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 59 – paragraph 6
6. The CommissionAgency shall facilitate the exchange of experience between national competent authorities.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 830 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 59 – paragraph 8
8. When Union institutions, agencies and bodies fall within the scope of this Regulation, the European Data Protection SupervisorAgency shall act as the competent authority for their supervision.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 831 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 60 – paragraph 1
1. The CommissionAgency shall, in collaboration with the Member States, set up and maintain a EU database containing information referred to in paragraph 2 concerning high-risk AI systems referred to in Article 6(2) which are registered in accordance with Article 51, as well as the information referred to in new paragraph 3x new of Article 52.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 831 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(c a) natural persons, affected by the use of an AI system, who are in the Union;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 833 #
2. The data listed in Annex VIII shall be entered into the EU database by the providers. The CommissionAgency shall provide them with technical and administrative support.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 837 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 60 – paragraph 5
5. The CommissionAgency shall be the controller of the EU database. It shall also ensure to providers adequate technical and administrative support.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 838 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. providers placing on the market or putting into service AI systems in a third country where the provider or distributor of such AI systems originates from the Union;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 846 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 63 – paragraph 6
6. Where Union institutions, agencies and bodies fall within the scope of this Regulation, the European Data Protection SupervisorAgency shall act as their market surveillance authority.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 850 #
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 Agency, the Commission and the other Member States of the results of the evaluation and of the actions which it has required the operator to take.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 851 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 65 – paragraph 5
5. Where the operator of an AI system does not take adequate corrective action within the period referred to in paragraph 2, the market surveillance authority shall take all appropriate provisional measures to prohibit or restrict the AI system's being made available on its national market, to withdraw the product from that market or to recall it. That authority shall inform the Agency, the Commission and the other Member States, without delay, of those measures.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 852 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 65 – paragraph 6 – point -a (new)
(-a) the non-compliance with new Article 4a;
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 853 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 65 – paragraph 7
7. The market surveillance authorities of the Member States other than the market surveillance authority of the Member State initiating the procedure shall without delay inform the Agency, the Commission and the other Member States of any measures adopted and of any additional information at their disposal relating to the non- compliance of the AI system concerned, and, in the event of disagreement with the notified national measure, of their objections.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 854 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 66 – paragraph 1
1. Where, within three months of receipt of the notification referred to in Article 65(5), objections are raised by a Member State against a measure taken by another Member State, or where the Agency or the Commission considers the measure to be contrary to Union law, the CommissionAgency shall without delay enter into consultation with the relevant Member State and operator or operators and shall evaluate the national measure. On the basis of the results of that evaluation, the CommissionAgency shall decide whether the national measure is justified or not within 96 months from the notification referred to in Article 65(5) and notify such decision to the Member State concerned.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 855 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 66 – paragraph 2
2. If the national measure is considered justified, all Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the non-compliant AI system is withdrawn from their market, and shall inform the CommissionAgency accordingly. If the national measure is considered unjustified, the Member State concerned shall withdraw the measure.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 856 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 67 – paragraph 3
3. The Member State shall immediately inform the Agency, the Commission and the other Member States. That information shall include all available details, in particular the data necessary for the identification of the AI system concerned, the origin and the supply chain of the AI system, the nature of the risk involved and the nature and duration of the national measures taken.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 857 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 67 – paragraph 5
5. The Commission shall address its decision to the Agency and the Member States.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 859 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 a (new)
Article 68 a Reporting of breaches and protection of reporting persons Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council1a shall apply to the reporting of breaches of this Regulation and the protection of persons reporting such breaches. _________________ 1a Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law (OJ L 305, 26.11.2019, p. 17).
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 864 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 69 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission and the Member States shall encouragsupport the mand facilitate theatory drawing up of codes of conduct intended to demonstrate compliance with the ethical principles underpinning trustworthy AI set out in Article 4a and to foster the voluntary application to AI systems other than high-risk AI systems of the requirements set out in Title III, Chapter 2 on the basis of technical specifications and solutions that are appropriate means of ensuring compliance with such requirements in light of the intended purpose of the systems.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 866 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 69 – paragraph 2
2. The Commission and the Board shall encourage and facilitatIn the drawing up codes of conduct intended to ensure and demonstrate compliance with the ethe drawing up of codes of conduct intended to foster the voluntary application to AI systems of requirements related for example to environmental sustainability, accessibility forical principles underpinning trustworthy AI set out in Article 4a, developers and deployers shall, in particular: (a) consider whether there is a sufficient level of AI literacy among their staff and any other persons dealing with the operation and use of AI systems in order to observe such principles; (b) assess to what extent their AI systems may affect vulnerable persons or groups of persons, including children, the elderly, migrants and persons with a disability, stakeholders participation in the design and development ofies or whether any measures could be put in place in order to support such persons or groups of persons; (c) pay attention to the way in which the use of their AI systems may have an impact on gender balance and equality; (d) have especial regard to whether their AI systems cand diversity of be used in a way that, directly or indirectly, may residually or significantly reinforce existing biases or inequalities; (e) reflect on the need and relevance of having in place diverse development teams oin the basis of clear objectives and key performance indicators to measure the achievement of those objectives. view of securing an inclusive design of their systems; (f) give careful consideration to whether their systems can have a negative societal impact, notably concerning political institutions and democratic processes; (g) evaluate the extent to which the operation of their AI systems would allow them to fully comply with the obligation to provide an explanation laid down in Article New 71 of this Regulation; (h) take stock of the Union’s commitments under the European Green Deal and the European Declaration on Digital Rights and Principles; (i) state their commitment to privileging, where reasonable and feasible, the common specifications to be drafted by the Commission pursuant to Article 41 rather than their own individual technical solutions.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 867 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 3
3. This Regulation shall not apply to AI systems developed or used exclusively for military purposes. However, this Regulation shall apply to AI systems which are developed or used as dual-use items, as defined in Article 2, point (1) of Regulation (EU) 2021/821 of the European Parliament and of the Council1a. _________________ 1a Regulation (EU) 2021/821 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2021 setting up a Union regime for the control of exports, brokering, technical assistance, transit and transfer of dual-use items (OJ L 206, 11.6.2021, p. 1).
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 868 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 69 – paragraph 3
3. Codes of conduct may be drawn up by individual providdevelopers and deployers of AI systems or by organisations representing them or by both, including with the involvement of users and any interested stakeholders and their representative organisations, in particular trade unions, and consumer organisations. Codes of conduct may cover one or more AI systems taking into account the similarity of the intended purpose of the relevant systems.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 871 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 69 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Developers and deployers shall designate at least one natural person that is responsible for the internal monitoring of the drawing up of their code of conduct and for verifying compliance with that code of conduct in the course of their activities. That person shall serve as a contact point for users, stakeholders, national competent authorities, the Commission and the European Agency for Data and AI on all matters concerning the code of conduct.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 872 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 69 – paragraph 4
4. The Commission and the BoardEuropean Agency for Data and AI shall take into account the specific interests and needs of the small-scale providers and start-ups when encouraging and facilitasupporting the drawing up of codes of conduct.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 876 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 69 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. In order to comply with the obligations established in this Article, developers and deployers shall ensure a sufficient level of AI literacy in line with New Article 6.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 876 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. This Regulation shall apply to Union institutions, offices, bodies and agencies when acting as an operator of an AI system.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 877 #
Proposal for a regulation
Title X
CONFIDENTIALITY, REMEDIES AND PENALTIES
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 878 #
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.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 883 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 70 a (new)
Article 70 a Right to an explanation 1. Any persons or groups of persons subject to a decision taken by a deployer or user on the basis of output from an AI system which produces legal effects, or which significantly affects them, shall have the right to receive from the deployer, upon request and, where concerning AI systems other than high- risk that are not subject to the requirements of Article 13 of this Regulation, at the time when the decision is communicated, a clear and meaningful explanation of: (a) the logic involved, the main parameters of decision-making and their relative weight; (b) the input data relating to the affected person or groups of persons and each of the main parameters on which the decision was made, including an easily understandable description of inferences drawn from other data if it is the inference that relates to a main parameter. 2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to the use of AI systems: (a) that are authorised by law to detect, prevent, investigate and prosecute criminal offences or other unlawful behaviour; (b) for which exceptions from, or restrictions to, the obligation under paragraph 1 follow from Union or national law, which lays down other appropriate safeguards for the affected person or groups of persons’ rights and freedoms and legitimate interests; or (c) where the affected person has given free, explicit, specific and informed consent not to receive an explanation.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 884 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 70 b (new)
Article 70 b Right to lodge a complaint 1. Every person or groups of persons harmed by AI systems shall have the right to lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority , in particular in the Member State of his or her habitual residence, place of work or place of the alleged harm if the person or groups of persons considers that the development, deployment or use of one or more AI systems infringes this Regulation. 2. The person or groups of persons shall have a right to be heard in the complaint handling procedure and in the context of any investigations conducted by the supervisory authority as a result of their complaint. 3. The supervisory authority with which the complaint has been lodged shall inform the complainant on the progress and the outcome of the complaint. In particular, supervisory authorities shall take all the necessary actions to follow up on the complaints they receive and, within three months of the reception of a complaint, give the complainant a preliminary response indicating the measures it intends to take and next steps in the procedure, if any. 4. The supervisory authority shall take a decision on the complaint, including the possibility of a judicial remedy pursuant to new Article 73, without delay and no later than six months after the date on which the complaint was lodged.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 885 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 70 c (new)
Article 70 c Right to an effective judicial remedy against a supervisory authority 1. Without prejudice to any other administrative or non-judicial remedy, each natural or legal person shall have the right to an effective judicial remedy against a legally binding decision of a supervisory authority concerning them. 2. Without prejudice to any other administrative or non-judicial remedy, each person or groups of persons harmed by AI systems shall have the right to an effective judicial remedy where the supervisory authority does not inform them on the progress or preliminary outcome of the complaint lodged within three months pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article new 72, does not comply with its obligation to reach a final decision on the complaint within six months pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article new 72 or with its obligations under Article 65. 3. Proceedings against a supervisory authority shall be brought before the courts of the Member State where the national competent authority or notified body is established.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 886 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 70 d (new)
Article 70 d Representation of affected persons or groups of persons 1. Without prejudice to Directive 2020/1828/EC, the person or groups of persons harmed by AI systems shall have the right to mandate a not-for-profit body, organisation or association which has been properly constituted in accordance with the law of a Member State, has statutory objectives which are in the public interest, and is active in the field of the protection of rights and freedoms impacted by AI to lodge the complaint on his, her or their behalf, to exercise the rights referred to in Articles New 71, New 72 and New 73 on his or her behalf. 2. Without prejudice to Directive 2020/1828/EC, the body, organisation or association referred to in paragraph 1 shall have the right to exercise the rights established in Articles New 72 and New 73 independently of a mandate by a person or groups of person if it considers that a developer or a deployer has infringed any of the rights or obligations set out in this Regulation.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 887 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 70 e (new)
Article 70 e Representative actions 1. The following is added to Annex I of Directive 2020/1828/EC on Representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers: “Regulation xxxx/xxxx of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (artificial intelligence act) and amending certain union legislative acts”.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 890 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. This Regulation shall not affect community law on social policy.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 891 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 5 b (new)
5 b. This Regulation shall not affect national labour law and practice or collective agreements, and it shall not preclude national legislation to ensure the protection of workers’ rights in respect of the use of AI systems by employers, including where this implies introducing more stringent obligations than those laid down in this Regulation.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 895 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The European Data Protection SupervisorAgency may impose administrative fines on Union institutions, agencies and bodies falling within the scope of this Regulation. When deciding whether to impose an administrative fine and deciding on the amount of the administrative fine in each individual case, all relevant circumstances of the specific situation shall be taken into account and due regard shall be given to the following:
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 897 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 5 c (new)
5 c. This Regulation is without prejudice to the rules laid down by other Union legal acts regulating other aspects of AI systems as well as the national rules aimed at enforcing or, as the case may be, implementing these acts, in particular Union law on consumer protection and product safety, including Regulation (EU)2017/2394, Regulation (EU) 2019/1020, Directive 2001/95/EC on general product safety and Directive 2013/11/EU.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 899 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the cooperation with the European Data Protection SupervisorAgency in order to remedy the infringement and mitigate the possible adverse effects of the infringement, including compliance with any of the measures previously ordered by the European Data Protection SupervisorAgency against the Union institution or agency or body concerned with regard to the same subject matter;
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 903 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 4
4. Before taking decisions pursuant to this Article, the European Data Protection SupervisorAgency shall give the Union institution, agency or body which is the subject of the proceedings conducted by the European Data Protection SupervisorAgency the opportunity of being heard on the matter regarding the possible infringement. The European Data Protection SupervisorAgency shall base his or herits decisions only on elements and circumstances on which the parties concerned have been able to comment. Complainants, if any, shall be associated closely with the proceedings.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 904 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 5
5. The rights of defense of the parties concerned shall be fully respected in the proceedings. They shall be entitled to have access to the European Data Protection SupervisorAgency’s file, subject to the legitimate interest of individuals or undertakings in the protection of their personal data or business secrets.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 910 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 83 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. This Regulation shall not apply to the AI systems which are components of the large-scale IT systems established by the legal acts listed in Annex IX that have been placed on the market or put into service before [12 months after the date of application of this Regulation referred to in Article 85(2)], unless the replacement or amendment of those legal acts leads to a significant change in the design or intended purpose of the AI system or AI systems concerned.
2022/03/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 920 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 1
(1) ‘artificial intelligence system’ (AI system) means software that is developed with can perceive, learn, reasone or more of the techniques and approaches listed in Annex I and can, for a given set of human-defined objectives,del based on machine and/or human based inputs, to generate outputs such as content, hypotheses, predictions, recommendations, or decisions influencing the real or virtual environments they interact with;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 951 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 4 a (new)
(4 a) ‘affected person’ means the natural or legal person who is ultimately directly or indirectly affected by the deployment of an AI system.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 961 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 8 a (new)
(8 a) ‘affected person’ means any natural person or group of persons who are subject to or affected by an AI system;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 968 #
(12) ‘intendedreasonably foreseeable purpose’ means the use for which an AI system is intended by the provider, including the specific context and conditions of use, as specified in the information supplied by the provider in the instructions for use, promotional or sales materials and statements, as well as in the technical documentation;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 984 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 14
(14) ‘safety component of a product or system’ means a component of a product or of a system which fulfils a safety or security function for that product or system or the failure or malfunctioning of which endangers the health and, safety of persons or property, fundamental rights of persons or which damages property, or the environment;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 999 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 20
(20) ‘conformity assessment’ means the process of verifydemonstrating whether the requirements set out in Title III, Chapter 2 of this Regulation relating to an AI system have been fulfilled;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1004 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 23
(23) ‘substantial modification’ means a change to the AI system following its placing on the market or putting into service which affects the compliance of the AI system with the requirements set out in Title III, Chapter 2 of this Regulation or results in a modification to the intended purpose for which the AI system has been assessed including the use of an AI system beyond its reasonably foreseeable purpose;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1019 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 30
(30) ‘validation data’ means data used for providing an evaluation of the trained AI system and for tuning its non-learnable parameters and its learning process, among other things, in order to prevent underfitting or overfitting; whereas the validation dataset can beis a separate dataset or part of the training dataset, either as a fixed or variable split;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1036 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 34
(34) ‘emotion recognition system’ means an AI system for the purpose of identifying or inferring emotions or intentions of natural personthoughts, states of mind or intentions of individuals or groups on the basis of their biometric and biometric-based data;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1039 #
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 gender, sex, age, hair colour, eye colour, tattoos, ethnic origin or sexual or political orientation, on the basis of their biometric data; social origin, health, mental or physical ability, behavioural or personality traits, language, religion, or membership of a national minority, or sexual or political orientation, on the basis of their biometric or biometric-based data, or which can be reasonably inferred from such data.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1089 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 – point a
(a) the death of a person or serious damage to a person’s health, to property or the environment,
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1095 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 – point b a (new)
(b a) a breach of obligations under Union law intended to protect fundamental rights;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1098 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 a (new)
(44 a) ‘AI systems presenting a risk’ means an AI system having the potential to affect adversely fundamental rights, health and safety of persons in general, including in the workplace, protection of consumers, the environment, public security, the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU and other public interests, that are protected by the applicable Union harmonisation legislation, to a degree which goes beyond that considered reasonable and acceptable in relation to its intended purpose or under the normal or reasonably foreseeable conditions of use of the system concerned, including the duration of use and, where applicable, its putting into service, installation and maintenance requirements.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1114 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 44 b (new)
(44 b) ‘child’ means any person below the age of 18 years.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1132 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4
Amendments to Annex I The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 73 to amend the list of techniques and approaches listed in Annex I, in order to update that list to market and technological developments on the basis of characteristics that are similar to the techniques and approaches listed therein.rticle 4 deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1143 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 a (new)
Article 4 a Principles applicable to all AI systems All operators of AI systems shall respect the following principles: 1. Operators of AI systems shall respect fundamental rights and the Union values, as enshrined in Article 2 TEU, throughout the AI system lifecycle. To ensure this, operators shall implement mechanisms and safeguards that are appropriate to the context and consistent with the state of art (‘fairness’) 2. Operators shall be accountable for the proper functioning of AI systems and for the respect of the fairness principle, based on their roles, the context, and consistent with the state of art. Operators shall ensure the proper functioning, throughout their lifecycle, of the AI systems that they design, develop, operate or use, in accordance with their role and applicable regulatory framework, and by demonstrating this through their actions and decision-making processes (‘accountability’) 3. Operators shall commit to transparency and responsible disclosure regarding AI systems. To this end, they shall provide meaningful information, appropriate to the context, and consistent with the state of the art: (a) to foster a general understanding of AI systems, (b) to make affected persons aware that they are interacting with an AI system and an explanation thereof, (c) to make affected persons aware about their rights conferred in this Regulation, (d) to enable those affected by an AI system to understand the outcome, and (e) to enable those adversely affected by an AI system to challenge its outcome based on plain and easy-to-understand information on the factors, and the logic that served as the basis for the prediction, recommendation or decision (‘transparency and explainability’). 4. Operators shall ensure that AI systems are robust, secure and safe throughout their entire lifecycle so that, in conditions of normal use, foreseeable use or misuse, or other adverse conditions, they function appropriately and do not pose unreasonable risk. Operators shall ensure, based on their roles and the context, traceability including in relation to datasets, processes and decisions made during the AI system lifecycle, to enable the analysis of the outcomes of the AI system and responses to inquiry, appropriate to the context and consistent with the state of the art. Operators shall, based on their roles, the context, and their ability to act, apply a systematic risk management approach to each phase of the AI system lifecycle on a continuous basis to address the risks related to AI systems, including privacy, protection of personal data, digital security, safety and bias (‘privacy and security’) 5. Operators shall proactively engage in pursuit of beneficial outcomes for people, societies and the planet, such as advancing inclusion, reducing economic, social, gender and other inequalities, and protecting natural environments, therefore invigorating inclusive growth, sustainable development and well-being (‘social benefit’).
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1148 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 b (new)
Article 4 b Accessibility Requirements for providers and users of AI systems 1. Providers of AI systems shall ensure that their systems are accessible in accordance with the accessibility requirements set out in Section I, Section II, Section VI, and Section VII of Annex I of Directive (EU) 2019/882 prior to those systems being placed on the market or put into service. 2. Users of AI systems shall use such systems in accordance with the accessibility requirements set out in Section III, Section IV, Section VI, and Section VII of Annex I of Directive (EU) 2019/882. 3. Users of AI systems shall prepare the necessary information in accordance with Annex V of Directive (EU) 2019/882. Without prejudice to Annex VIII of this Regulation, the information shall be made available to the public in an accessible manner for persons with disabilities and be kept for as long as the AI system is in use. 4. Without prejudice to the rights of affected persons to information about the use and functioning of AI systems, transparency obligations for providers and users of AI, obligations to ensure consistent and meaningful public transparency under this Regulation, providers and users of AI systems shall ensure that information, forms and measures provided pursuant to this Regulation are made available in such a manner that they are easy to find, easy to understand, and accessible in accordance with Annex I to Directive 2019/882. 5. Users of AI systems shall ensure that procedures are in place so that the use of AI systems remains in conformity with the applicable accessibility requirements. Changes in the characteristics of the use, changes in applicable accessibility requirements and changes in the harmonised standards or in technical specifications by reference to which use of an AI system is declared to meet the accessibility requirements shall be adequately taken into account by the user. 6. In the case of non-conformity, users of AI systems shall take the corrective measures necessary to conform with the applicable accessibility requirements. When necessary, and at the request of the user, the provider of the AI system in question shall cooperate with the user to bring the use of the AI system into compliance with applicable accessibility requirements. 7. Furthermore, where the use of an AI system is not compliant with applicable accessibility requirements, the user shall immediately inform the competent national authorities of the Member States in which the system is being used, to that effect, giving details, in particular, of the non-compliance and of any corrective measures taken. They shall cooperate with the authority, at the request of that authority, on any action taken to bring the use of the AI system into compliance with applicable accessibility requirements. 8. AI systems and the use of thereof, which are in conformity with harmonised technical standards or parts thereof derived from Directive (EU) 2019/882 the references of which have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be presumed to be in conformity with the accessibility requirements of this Regulation in so far as those standards or parts thereof cover those requirements. 9. AI systems and use of thereof, which are in conformity with the technical specifications or parts thereof adopted for the Directive (EU) 2019/882 shall be presumed to be in conformity with the accessibility requirements of this Regulation in so far as those technical specifications or parts thereof cover those requirements.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1153 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 c (new)
Article 4 c Right to receive an explanation of individual decision-making 1. A decision which is taken by the user on the basis of the output from an AI system and which produces legal effects on an affected person, or which similarly significantly affects that person, shall be accompanied by a meaningful explanation of (a) the role of the AI system in the decision-making process; (b) the logic involved, the main parameters of the decision-making, and their relative weight; and (c) the input data relating to the affected person and each of the main parameters on the basis of which the decision was made. For information on input data under point c) to be meaningful, it must include an easily understandable description of inferences drawn from other data, if it is the inference that relates to the main parameter. 2. For the purpose of Paragraph 1, it shall be prohibited for the law enforcement authorities or the judiciary in the Union to use AI systems that are considered closed or labelled as proprietary by the providers or the distributors; 3. The explanation within the meaning of paragraph 1 shall be provided at the time when the decision is communicated to the affected person.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1154 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 d (new)
Article 4 d Right not to be subject to non-compliant AI systems Natural persons shall have the right not to be subject to AI systems that: (a) pose an unacceptable risk pursuant to Article 5, or (b) otherwise do not comply with the requirements of this Regulation.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1157 #
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 behaviourtechniques with the effect or likely effect of materially distorting a person’s behaviour by appreciably impairing the persons’ ability to make an informed decision, thereby causing the person to take a decision that they would not have taken otherwise, in a manner that causes or is likely to cause that person or another person, or a group of persons material or non-material harm, including physical or, psychological or economic harm;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1170 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the placing on the market, putting into service or use of an AI system that deploys subliminal techniques beyond a person’s consciousness in order to materially distort a person’s behaviour in a manner that causes or is likely to cause that person or another person physical or psychological harm;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1173 #
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 subliminal techniques.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1176 #
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 ofor may be reasonably foreseen to exploit vulnerabilities of children or characteristics of a person or a specific group of persons due to their age, physical or mental disability, in order togender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, race, origin, and religion or social or economic situation, with the effect or likely effect of materially distorting the behaviour of a person pertaining to that group in a manner that causes or is likely to cause that person or another person material or non-material harm, including physical or, psychological or economic harm;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1182 #
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 an individual or 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, material or economic damage;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1202 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c – point i
(i) detrimental or unfavourable treatment of certain natural persons or whole groups thereof in social contexts which are unrelated to the contexts in which the data was originally generated or collected;deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1217 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c – point ii
(ii) detrimental or unfavourable treatment of certain natural persons or whole groups thereof that is unjustified or disproportionate to their social behaviour or its gravity;deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1222 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(c a) the placing on the market, putting into service or use of an AI system for making individual or place-based risk assessments of natural persons in order to assess the risk of a natural person for offending or reoffending or for predicting the occurrence or reoccurrence of an actual or potential criminal offence based on profiling of a natural person or on assessing personality traits and characteristics or past criminal behaviour of natural persons or groups of natural persons;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1237 #
(d) the use of ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification systems in publicly or privately 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:, both online and offline.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1252 #
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 1265 #
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 1277 #
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 1347 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. the placing on the market, putting into service or use of an AI system that analyses and understands human non- verbal signs such as facial expressions, body language, gestures and voice tones to assess their emotional state or perform biometric categorisation.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1351 #
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 1368 #
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 1380 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point 1 (new)
(1) The placing on the market, putting into service or use of biometric categorisation systems, or other AI systems, that categorise natural persons or groups of persons according to sensitive or protected attributes or characteristics, or infer those attributes or characteristics. Sensitive attributes or characteristics include, but are not limited to: gender and gender identity, race, ethnic origin, migration or citizenship status, political orientation, sexual orientation, religion, disability or any other grounds on which discrimination is prohibited under Article 21 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights as well as under Article 9 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1382 #
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 1395 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. The placing on the market, putting into service or use of AI systems intended to be used as polygraphs, emotion recognition systems or similar tools to detect the emotional state, trustworthiness or related characteristics of a natural person.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1396 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. In order to increase public transparency and oversight every decision about the deployment or marketing of any AI system that is categorised as posing an unacceptable risk shall be made public.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1398 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 4 b (new)
4 b. Member States may, by law or collective agreements, decide to prohibit or to limit the use of AI systems to ensure the protection of the rights of workers in the employment context, in particular for the purposes of the recruitment, the performance of the contract of employment, including discharge obligations laid down by law or by collective agreements, management, planning and organization of work, equality and diversity at the workplace, health and safety at work, protection of employers or customers' property and for the purposes of the exercise and enjoyment, on an individual or collective basis, of rights and benefits related to employment, and for the purpose of the termination of the employment relationship.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1399 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 4 c (new)
4 c. the placing on the market, putting into service or the use of AI systems by or on behalf of competent authorities in migration, asylum or border control management, to profile an individual or 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 the territory of a Member State, on the basis of personal or sensitive data, known or predicted, except for the sole purpose of identifying specific care and support needs;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1400 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 4 d (new)
4 d. the placing on the market, putting into service or use of AI systems by competent authorities or on their behalf in migration, asylum and border control management, to forecast or predict individual or collective movement for the purpose of, or in any way reasonably foreseeably leading to, the prohibiting, curtailing or preventing migration or border crossings;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1401 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 4 e (new)
4 e. the placing on the market, putting into service or the use of AI systems intended to assist competent authorities for the examination of application 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 1402 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 4 f (new)
4 f. the placing on the market, putting into service, or use of an AI system for the specific technical processing of brain or brain-generated data in order to access, infer, influence, or manipulate a person's thoughts, emotions, memories, intentions, beliefs, or other mental states against that person's will or 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 1413 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph -1 (new)
-1. AI systems referred to in Annex III shall be considered high-risk for the purposes of this Regulation.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1433 #
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.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1462 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 73 to update the list in Annex III by addingAnnex III, including by adding new areas of high-risk AI systems, where both of the following conditions are fulfilled: a type of AI system poses a risk of harm to the health and safety, a risk of adverse impact on fundamental rights, on climate change mitigation and adaptation, the environment, or a risk of contravention of the Union values enshrined in Article 2 TEU, and that risk is, in respect of its severity and probability of occurrence, equivalent to or greater than the risk of harm or of adverse impact posed by the high-risk AI systems in use in the areas listed in Annex III.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1473 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the AI systems are intended to be used in any of the areas listed in points 1 to 8 of Annex III;deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1481 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the AI systems pose a risk of harm to the health and safety, or a risk of adverse impact on fundamental rights, that is, in respect of its severity and probability of occurrence, equivalent to or greater than the risk of harm or of adverse impact posed by the high-risk AI systems already referred to in Annex III.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1507 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) the extent to which the use of an AI system has already caused harm to natural persons, has contravened the Union values enshrined in Article 2 TEU, has caused harm to the health and safety or has had an adverse impact on the fundamental rights, on the environment or society, or has given rise to significant concerns in relation to the materialisation of such harm or adverse impact, as demonstrated by reports or documented allegations submitted to national competent authorities, to the Commission, to the Board, to the EDPS or to the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA);
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1526 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point g
(g) the extent to which the outcome produced with an AI system is easily reversible, whereby outcomes having an impact on the health or safety of persons, the fundamental rights of persons, the environment or society, or on the Union values enshrined in Article 2 TEU shall not be considered as easily reversible;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1566 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2
2. The intended purpose, reasonably foreseeable uses and foreseeable misuses of the high- risk AI system and the risk management system referred to in Article 9 shall be taken into account when ensuring compliance with those requirements.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1594 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) estimation and evaluation of the risks that may emerge when the high-risk AI system is used in accordance with its intended purpose or reasonably foreseeable use and under conditions of reasonably foreseeable misuse;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1615 #
4. The risk management measures referred to in paragraph 2, point (d) shall be such that any residual risk associated with each hazard as well as the overall residual risk of the high-risk AI systems is judged acceptable, provided that the high- risk AI system is used in accordance with its intended purpose or under conditions of reasonably foreseeable use or misuse. Those residual risks shall be communicated to the user.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1633 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
In eliminating or reducing risks related to the use of the high-risk AI system, due consideration shall be given to the technical knowledge, experience, education, training to be expected by the user and the environment in which the system is intended or reasonably foreseeable to be used.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1678 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Validation datatsets shall be separate datasets from both the testing and the training datasets, in order for the evaluation to be unbiased. If only one dataset is available, it shall be divided in three parts: a training set, a validation set, and a testing set. Each set shall comply with paragraph 3 of this Article.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1680 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. Techniques such as unsupervised learning and reinforcement learning, that do not use validation and testing datasets, shall be developed on the basis of training datasets that meet the quality criteria referred to in paragraphs 2 to 4.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1711 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. the evaluation of the impacts of a high-risk AI system, designed to ensure it is functioning as intended, that there are no errors or risks left unaddressed and that the system continues to meet the state-of-the-art standards required by this Regulation (ex post requirement).
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1719 #
3. Training, validation and testing data sets shall be relevant, representative, up-to-date, and to the best extent possible, taking into account the state of the art, free of errors and be as complete as possible. They shall have the appropriate statistical properties, including, where applicable, as regards the persons or groups of persons on which the high-risk AI system is intended to be used. These characteristics of the data sets mayshall be met at the level of each individual data sets or a combination thereof.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1732 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 4
4. Training, validation and testing dData sets shall take into account, to the extent required by the intended purpose, the reasonably foreseeable uses and misuses of AI systems, the characteristics or elements that are particular to the specific geographical, cultural, behavioural or functional setting within which the high-risk AI system is intended to be used.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1764 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Providers that are credit institutions regulated by Directive 2013/36/EU shall maintain the technical documentation as part of the documentation concerning internal governance, arrangements, processes and mechanisms pursuant to Article 74 of that Directive.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1773 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2
2. The logging capabilities shall ensure a level of traceability of the AI system’s functioning throughout its lifecycle that is appropriate to the intended purpose or reasonably foreseeable use of the system.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1782 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 4 – point a
(a) recording of the period of each use of the system (start date and time and end date and time of each use);
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1783 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 4 – point c
(c) the input data for which the search has led to a match;deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1873 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 a (new)
Article 15 a Sustainable AI systems reporting 1. Providers of high-risk AI systems shall make publicly available information on the energy consumption of the AI system, in particular its carbon footprint with regard to the development of hardware, computational resources, as well as algorithm design and training, testing and validating processes of the high-risk AI systems. The provider shall include this information in the technical documentation referred to in Article 11. 2. The Commission shall develop, by means of an implementing act, a standardised document to facilitate the disclosure of information on the energy used in the training and execution of AI systems and their carbon intensity.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1882 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
(a a) indicate their name, registered trade name or registered trade mark, and their address on the high-risk AI system or, where that is not possible, on its packaging or its accompanying documentation, as appropriate;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 1945 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18
Obligation to draw up technical documentation 1. Providers of high-risk AI systems shall draw up the technical documen-tation referred to in Article 11 in accordance with Annex IV. 2. Providers that are credit institutions regulated by Directive 2013/36/EU shall maintain the technical documentation as part of the documentation concerning internal governance, arrangements, processes and mechanisms pursuant to Article 74 of that Directive.Article 18 deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2060 #
Prior to putting into service or use an AI system at the workplace, users shall consult workers representatives, inform the affected employees that they will be subject to the system and obtain their consent.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2079 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 a (new)
Article 29 a Fundamental rights impact assessment for high-risk AI systems 1. Prior to putting a high-risk AI system as defined in Article 6(2) into use, users shall conduct an assessment of the systems’ impact in the specific context of use. This assessment shall include, at a minimum, the following elements: (a) a clear outline of the intended purpose for which the system will be used; (b) a clear outline of the intended geographic and temporal scope of the system’s use; (ba) categories of natural persons and groups likely to be affected by the use of the system; (c) verification that the use of the system is compliant with relevant Union and national law, and with fundamental rights law; (d) the foreseeable direct or indirect impact on fundamental rights of putting the high-risk AI system into use; (e) any specific risk of harm likely to impact marginalised persons or vulnerable groups; (f) the foreseeable impact of the use of the system on the environment including, but not limited to, energy consumption; (g) any other negative impact on the protection of the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU; (h) in the case of public authorities, any other impact on democracy, rule of law and allocation of public funds; and (i) a detailed plan as to how the harms and the negative direct or indirect impact on fundamental rights identified will be mitigated. 2. If a detailed plan to mitigate the risks outlined in the course of the assessment outlined in paragraph 1 cannot be identified, the user shall refrain from putting the high-risk AI system into use and inform the provider and the relevant national competent authorities without undue delay. Market surveillance authorities, pursuant to Articles 65 and 67, shall take this information into account when investigating systems which present a risk at national level. 3. The obligation outlined under paragraph 1 applies for each new use of the high-risk AI system. 4. In the course of the impact assessment, the user shall notify relevant national competent authorities and relevant stakeholders and involve representatives of the persons or groups of persons that are reasonably foreseeable to be affected by the high-risk AI system, as identified in paragraph 1, including but not limited to: equality bodies, consumer protection agencies, social partners and data protection agencies, with a view to receiving input into the impact assessment. The user must allow a period of six weeks for bodies to respond. 5. The user that is a public authority shall publish the results of the impact assessment as part of the registration of use pursuant to their obligation under Article 51(2).
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2092 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 8
8. Notifying authorities shall make sure that conformity assessments are carried out in a proportionate and timely manner, avoiding unnecessary burdens for providers and that notified bodies perform their activities taking due account of the size of an undertaking, the sector in which it operates, its structure and the degree of complexity of the AI system in question.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2094 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 3
3. Where the conformity assessment body concerned cannot provide an accreditation certificate, it shall provide the notifying authority with all the documentary evidence necessary for the verification, recognition and regular monitoring of its compliance with the requirements laid down in Article 33. For notified bodies which are designated under any other Union harmonisation legislation, all documents and certificates linked to those designations may be used to support their designation procedure under this Regulation, as appropriate.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2096 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 3
3. The notification referred to in paragraph 2 shall include full details of the conformity assessment activities, the conformity assessment module or modules and the artificial intelligence technologies concerned, as well as the relevant attestation of competence.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2098 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 4
4. The conformity assessment body concerned may perform the activities of a notified body only where no objections are raised by the Commission or the other Member States. within onetwo weeks of the validation of the notification where it includes an accreditation certificate referred to in Article 31(2), or within two months of athe notification where it includes documentary evidence referred to in Article 31(3).
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2100 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Where objections are raised, the Commission shall without delay enter into consultation with the relevant Member States and the conformity assessment body. In view thereof, the Commission shall decide whether the authorisation is justified or not. The Commission shall address its decision to the Member State concerned and the relevant conformity assessment body.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2104 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 4
4. Notified bodies shall be independent of the provider of a high-risk AI system in relation to which it performs conformity assessment activities. Notified bodies shall also be independent of any other operator having an economic interest in the high-risk AI system that is assessed, as well as of any competitors of the provider. This shall not preclude the use of assessed AI systems that are necessary for the operations of the conformity assessment body or the use of such systems for personal purposes.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2110 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 1
1. Where a notifying authority has suspicions or has been informed that a notified body no longer meets the requirements laid down in Article 33, or that it is failing to fulfil its obligations, that authority shall without delay investigate the matter with the utmost diligence. In that context, it shall inform the notified body concerned about the objections raised and give it the possibility to make its views known. If the notifying authority comes to the conclusion that the notified body investigation no longer meets the requirements laid down in Article 33 or that it is failing to fulfil its obligations, it shall restrict, suspend or withdraw the notification as appropriate, depending on the seriousness of the failure. It shall also immediately inform the Commission and the other Member States accordingly.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2112 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 3
3. The Commission shall ensure that all confidentialsensitive information obtained in the course of its investigations pursuant to this Article is treated confidentially.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2119 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 39 – paragraph 1
Conformity assessment bodies established under the law of a third country with which the Union has concluded an agreement in this respect may be authorised to carry out the activities of notified Bodies under this Regulation.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2127 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 1 a (new)
When AI systems are intended to be deployed at the workplace, harmonised standards shall be limited to technical specifications and procedures.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2159 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. For high-risk AI systems listed in point 1 of Annex III, where, in demonstrating the compliance of a high- risk AI system with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title, the provider has not applied harmonised standards referred to in Article 40, or, where applicable, common specifications referred to in Article 41, the provider shall follow one of the following procedures:the conformity assessment procedure based on assessment of the quality management system and assessment of the technical documentation, with the involvement of a notified body, referred to in Annex VII.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2164 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the conformity assessment procedure based on internal control referred to in Annex VI;deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2168 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the conformity assessment procedure based on assessment of the quality management system and assessment of the technical documentation, with the involvement of a notified body, referred to in Annex VII.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2173 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Where, in demonstrating the compliance of a high-risk AI system with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of this Title, the provider has not applied or has applied only in part harmonised standards referred to in Article 40, or where such harmonised standards do not exist and common specifications referred to in Article 41 are not available, the provider shall follow the conformity assessment procedure set out in Annex VII.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2176 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
For the purpose of the conformity assessment procedure referred to in Annex VII, the provider may choose any of the notified bodies. However, when the system is intended to be put into service by law enforcement, immigration or asylum authorities as well as EU institutions, bodies or agencies, the market surveillance authority referred to in Article 63(5) or (6), as applicable, shall act as a notified body.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2178 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Without prejudice to paragraph 1, if the provider has applied harmonised standard referred to in Article 40, or where applicable, common specifications referred to in Article 41, it shall follow the conformity assessment procedure based on internal control referred to in Annex VI.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2179 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. In the following cases, the compliance of the high-risk AI system with requirements laid down in Chapter 2 of this Title shall be assessed following the conformity assessment procedure based on the assessment of the quality management system and the assessment of the technical documentation, with the involvement of a notified body, referred to in Annex VII: (a) where harmonised standards, the reference number of which has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union, covering all relevant safety requirements for the AI system, do not exist; (b) where the harmonised standards referred to in point (a) exist but the manufacturer has not applied them or has applied them only in part; (c) where one or more of the harmonised standards referred to in point (a) has been published with a restriction; (d) when the provider considers that the nature, design, construction or purpose of the AI system necessitate third party verification.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2182 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 2
2. For high-risk AI systems referred to in points 2 to 8 of Annex III, providers shall follow the conformity assessment procedure based on internal control as referred to in Annex VI, which does not provide for the involvement of a notified body. For high-risk AI systems referred to in point 5(b) of Annex III, placed on the market or put into service by credit institutions regulated by Directive 2013/36/EU, the conformity assessment shall be carried out as part of the procedure referred to in Articles 97 to101 of that Directive.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2197 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. The specific interests and needs of the small-scale providers shall be taken into account when setting the fees for third-party conformity assessment under this Article, reducing those fees proportionately to their size and market size.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2205 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 6
6. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts to amend paragraphs 1 and 2 in order to subject high-risk AI systems referred to in points 2 to 8 of Annex III to the conformity assessment procedure referred to in Annex VII or parts thereof. The Commission shall adopt such delegated acts taking into account the effectiveness of the conformity assessment procedure based on internal control referred to in Annex VI in preventing or minimizing the risks to health and safety and protection of fundamental rights posed by such systems as well as the availability of adequate capacities and resources among notified bodies.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2230 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 49 – paragraph 1
1. The CE marking shall be affixed visibly, legibly and indelibly for high-risk AI systems before the high-risk AI system is placed on the market. Where that is not possible or not warranted on account of the nature of the high-risk AI system, it shall be affixed to the packaging or to the accompanying documentation, as appropriate. It may be followed by a pictogram or any other marking indicating a special risk or use.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2236 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 49 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Where high-risk AI systems are subject to other Union legislation which also provides for the affixing of the CE marking, the CE marking shall indicate that the high-risk AI system also fulfil the requirements of that other legislation.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2238 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
The provider shall, for the entire lifecycle of the AI system or for a period ending 10 years after the AI system has been placed on the market or put into service, whichever is the longest, keep at the disposal of the national competent authorities:
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2317 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 3
3. The AI regulatory sandboxes shall not affect the supervisory and corrective powers of the competent authorities. Any significant risks to health and safety and, fundamental rights and the environment identified during the development and testing of such systems shall result in immediate mitigation and, failing that, in the suspension ofand adequate mitigation. Where such mitigation proves to be ineffective, the development and testing process shall be suspended without delay until such mitigation takes place.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2369 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 a (new)
Article 54 a Promotion of AI research and development in support of socially and environmentally beneficial outcomes 1. Member States shall promote research and development of AI solutions which support socially and environmentally beneficial outcomes, including but not limited to development of AI-based solutions to increase accessibility for persons with disabilities, tackle socio- economic inequalities, and meet sustainability and environmental targets, by: (a) providing relevant projects with priority access to the AI regulatory sandboxes to the extent that they fulfil the eligibility conditions; (b) earmarking public funding, including from relevant EU funds, for AI research and development in support of socially and environmentally beneficial outcomes; (c) organising specific awareness raising activities about the application of this Regulation, the availability of and application procedures for dedicated funding, tailored to the needs of those projects; (d) where appropriate, establishing accessible dedicated channels, including within the sandboxes, for communication with projects to provide guidance and respond to queries about the implementation of this Regulation. 2. Without prejudice to Article 55 a (new)1(a), Member States shall ensure that relevant projects are led by civil society and social stakeholders that set the project priorities, goals, and outcomes.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2504 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 1 – point c – introductory part
(c) issue opinions, recommendations or written contributions on matters related to the implementation of this Regulation, after consulting relevant stakeholders, in particular
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2651 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 62 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Providers and, where users have identified a serious incident or malfunctioning, users of high-risk AI systems placed on the Union market shall report any serious incident or any malfunctioning of those systems which constitutes a breach of obligations under Union law intended to protect fundamental rights to the market surveillance authorities of the Member States where that incident or breach occurred and to the affected persons and, where the incident or breach occurs or is likely to occur in at least two Member States, to the Commission.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2667 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 62 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. The market surveillance authorities shall take appropriate measures within 7 days from the date it received the notification referred to in paragraph 1. Where the infringement takes place or is likely to take place in other Member States, the market surveillance authority shall notify the Commission, the Board and the relevant national competent authorities of these Member States.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2670 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 62 – paragraph 3
3. For high-risk AI systems referred to in point 5(b) of Annex III which are placed on the market or put into service by providers that are credit institutions regulated by Directive 2013/36/EU and for high-risk AI systems which are safety components of devices, or are themselves devices, covered by Regulation (EU) 2017/745 and Regulation (EU) 2017/746, the notification of serious incidents or malfunctioning for the purposes of this Regulation shall be limited to those that that constitute a breach of obligations under Union law intended to protect fundamental rights and the environment.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2677 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 63 – paragraph 5
5. For AI systems listed in point 1(a) in so far as the systemsthat are used for law enforcement purposes, points 6 and 7 of Annex III, Member States shall designate as market surveillance authorities for the purposes of this Regulation either the competent data protection supervisory authorities under Directive (EU) 2016/680, or Regulation 2016/679 or the national competent authorities supervising the activities of the law enforcement, immigration or asylum authorities putting into service or using those systems.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2705 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 65 – paragraph 1
1. AI systems presenting a risk shall be understood as a product presenting a risk defined in Article 3, point 19 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 insofar as risks to the health or safety or to the protection of fundamental rights of persmeans an AI system having the potential to affect adversely fundamental rights, health and safety of persons in general, including in the workplace, protection of consumers, the environment, public security, the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU and other public interests, that are protected by the applicable Union harmonisation legislation, to a degree which goes beyond that considered reasonable and acceptable in relation to its intended purpose or under the normal or reasonably foreseeable conditions of use of the system concerned, including the duration of use and, where applicable, its putting into service, installations are concernednd maintenance requirements.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2717 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 65 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Where, in the course of that evaluation, the market surveillance authority or, where relevant, the national public authority referred to in Article 64(3) finds that the AI system does not comply with the requirements and obligations laid down in this Regulation, it shall without delay require the relevant operator to take all appropriate corrective actions to bring the AI system into compliance, to withdraw the AI system from the market, or to recall it within a reasonable period, commensurate with the nature of the risk, as it may prescribe, and in any case no later than 15 working days.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2725 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 65 – paragraph 5
5. Where the operator of an AI system does not take adequate corrective action within the period referred to in paragraph 2, the market surveillance authority shall take all appropriate provisional measures to prohibit or restrict the AI system's being made available on its national market or put into service, to withdraw the productAI system from that market or to recall it. That authority shall immediately inform the Commission, the Board and the other Member States, without delay, of those measures.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2728 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 65 – paragraph 6 – point a
(a) a failure of the AI system to meet requirements set out in Title III, Chapter 2and obligations set out in this Regulation;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2745 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 66 a (new)
Article 66 a Requests for Commission intervention 1. Where market surveillance authorities have reasons to suspect that the infringement of a provider or of a user of a high-risk AI system to this Regulation is liable to compromise the health or safety or fundamental of affected persons, the environment and the Union values enshrined in Article 2 TEU amount to a widespread infringement or a widespread infringement with a Uniondimension or affects or is likely affect at least 45 million citizens in the Union. The market surveillance authority may request the Commission to take the necessary investigatory and enforcement measures to ensure compliance with this Regulation. Such request shall set out the reasons for the Commission to intervene. 2. Prior to requesting the Commission to intervene, the market surveillance authority shall notify the Board which shall issue within 7 days a non-binding opinion on the request for the Commission to intervene. The market surveillance authority shall take into account the non-binding opinion of the Board before sending its request to the Commission.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2749 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 67 – paragraph 1
1. Where, having performed an evaluation under Article 65, in full cooperation with the relevant national public authority referred to in Article 64(3),the market surveillance authority of a Member State finds that although an AI system is in compliance with this Regulation, it presents a risk to the health or safety of persons, to the compliance with obligations under Union or national law intended to protect fundamental rights, environment, European values as enshrined in Article 2 TEU 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 2770 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 a (new)
Article 68 a Insufficient application or non- application of Union law by the competent authority 1. Where a competent authority has failed to ensure that an AI system is in compliance with the requirements laid down in this Regulation, or where a competent authority fails to require sufficient corrective action from an operator of an AI system that is incompliance with this Regulation but presents a risk to the health or safety of persons, to the compliance with obligations under Union or national law intended to protect fundamental rights or to other aspects of public interest protection, the Commission shall act in accordance with the powers set out in the following paragraphs of this Article. 2. Upon request from one or more competent authorities, the European Parliament, the Council, the European Artificial Intelligence Board, or on its own initiative, including when this is based on well substantiated information from natural or legal persons, and after having informed the competent authority concerned, the Commission shall outline how it intends to proceed with the case and, where appropriate, investigate the alleged insufficient application or non- application of Union law. The competent authority shall, without delay, provide the Commission with all information which the Commission considers necessary for its investigation. The Commission may, after having informed the competent authority concerned, address a duly justified and reasoned request for information directly to other competent authorities whenever requesting information from the competent authority concerned has proven, or is deemed tobe, insufficient to obtain the information that is deemed necessary for the purpose of investigating an alleged insufficient application or non- application of Union law. The addressee of such a request shall provide the Commission with clear, accurate and complete information without undue delay. Before issuing a recommendation as set out in paragraph 4, the Commission shall engage with the competent authority concerned where it considers such engagement appropriate in order to resolve the insufficient application or non-application of Union law, in an attempt to reach agreement on actions necessary for the competent authority to comply with Union law. 3. Where necessary to issue a recommendation as set out in paragraph 4, the Commission shall have the rights granted to the market surveillance authorities under Article 64. 4. The Commission may, not later than 2 months from initiating its investigation, address a recommendation to the competent authority concerned setting out the action necessary to comply with Union law. The competent authority shall, within ten working days of receipt of the recommendation, inform the Commission of the steps it has taken or intends to take to ensure compliance with Union law. 5. Where the competent authority has not complied with Union law within 1 month from receipt of the Commission’s recommendation, the Commission may issue a formal opinion requiring the competent authority to take the action necessary to comply with Union law. The Commission shall issue such a formal opinion no later than 3 months after the adoption of the recommendation set out in paragraph 4. The Commission may extend this period by 1 month. 6. The competent authority shall, within ten working days of receipt of the formal opinion referred to in paragraph 5,inform the Commission of the steps it has taken or intends to take to comply with that formal opinion. 7. Without prejudice to the powers of the Commission pursuant to Article 258 TFEU, where a competent authority does not comply with the formal opinion referred to in paragraph 5 of this Article within the period specified therein, the Commission may adopt an individual decision addressed to the operator of an AI system requiring it to take all necessary action to comply with its obligations under Union law. The decision of the Commission shall be in conformity with the formal opinion issued pursuant to paragraph 5. 8. Decisions adopted in accordance with paragraph 7 shall prevail over any previous decision adopted by the competent authorities on the same matter. When taking action in relation to issues which are subject to a formal opinion pursuant to paragraph 5 or to a decision pursuant to paragraph 7, competent authorities shall comply with the formal opinion or the decision, as the case may be.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2775 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 a (new)
Article 68 a Commission fees 1. The Commission shall charge fees to market surveillance authorities when the Commission initiates proceedings in accordance with Article 68a(1)(c). 2. The overall amount of the fee shall cover the estimated costs the Commission incurs in relation to proceedings carried out under this Regulation, in particular costs related to the investigation and enforcement measures pursuant to Chapter 4 of Title VIII. 3. The Commission shall lay down in a delegated act, adopted pursuant to Article 73, the detailed methodology and procedures for:(a) the determination of the estimated costs referred to in paragraph 2and the necessary payment modalities. 4. The fees charged pursuant to paragraph 1 shall constitute external assigned revenue in accordance with Article 21(5) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council. 5. The Commission shall report annually to the European Parliament and to the Council on the overall amount of the costs incurred for the fulfilment of the tasks under this Regulation and the total amount of the fees charged in the preceding year.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2781 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 b (new)
Article 68 b Representation of affected persons or groups of persons 1. Without prejudice to Directive 2020/1828/EC, the person or groups of persons harmed by AI systems shall have the right to mandate a not-for-profit body, organisation or association which has been properly constituted in accordance with the law of a Member State, has statutory objectives which are in the public interest, and is active in the field of the protection of rights and freedoms impacted by AI to lodge the complaint on his, her or their behalf, to exercise the rights referred to in this Regulation on his, her or their behalf. 2. Without prejudice to Directive 2020/1828/EC, the body, organisation or association referred to in paragraph 1 shall have the right to exercise the rights established in this Regulation independently of a mandate by a person or groups of person if it considers that a provider or a user has infringed any of the rights or obligations set out in this Regulation.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2783 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 c (new)
Article 68 c Amendment to Directive 2020/1828/EC on Representative Actions for the Protection of the Collective Interests of Consumers The following is added to Annex I of Directive 2020/1828/EC on Representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers: “Regulation xxxx/xxxx of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (artificial intelligence act) and amending certain union legislative acts”.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2785 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 d (new)
Article 68 d Reporting of breaches and protection of reporting persons Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council shall apply to the reporting of breaches of this Regulation and the protection of persons reporting such breaches.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2825 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 71 – paragraph 2
2. TWithin [three months following the entry into force of this Regulation], the Member States shall notify the Commission of those rules and of those measures and shall notify it, without delay, of any subsequent amendment affecting them.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2828 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 71 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. The non-compliance of the AI system with the prohibition of the practices referred to in Article 5 shall be subject to administrative fines of up to 50 000 000 EUR or, if the offender is a company, up to 10% of its total worldwide annual turnover for the preceding financial year, whichever is higher.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2832 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 71 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. The following infringementsnon-compliance of the AI system with the requirements laid down in Article 10 shall be subject to administrative fines of up to 340 000 000 EUR or, if the offender is a company, up to 68 % of its total worldwide annual turnover for the preceding financial year, whichever is higher: .
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2836 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 71 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) non-compliance with the prohibition of the artificial intelligence practices referred to in Article 5;deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2844 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 71 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) non-compliance of the AI system with the requirements laid down in Article 10.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2849 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 71 – paragraph 4
4. The non-compliance of the AI system with any requirements or obligations under this Regulation, other than those laid down in Articles 5 and 10, shall be subject to administrative fines of up to 230 000 000 EUR or, if the offender is a company, up to 46 % of its total worldwide annual turnover for the preceding financial year, whichever is higher.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2858 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 71 – paragraph 5
5. The supply of incorrect, incomplete or misleading information to notified bodies and national competent authorities in reply to a request shall be subject to administrative fines of up to 120 000 000 EUR or, if the offender is a company, up to 24 % of its total worldwide annual turnover for the preceding financial year, whichever is higher.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2865 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 71 – paragraph 6 – point c
(c) the size and market share of the operator committing the infringement;deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2878 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 71 – paragraph 8
8. Depending on the legal system of the Member States, the rules on administrative fines may be applied in such a manner that the fines are imposed by competent national courts of other bodies as applicable in those Member States. The application of such rules in those Member States shall have an equivalent effect. In any event, the fines imposed shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2879 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 71 – paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. In respect of adopting administrative fines and of deciding on the amount of the administrative fine the procedure as set out in Article 68a, paragraphs 2 to 6, applies mutatis mutandis.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2894 #
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 1 000 000 EUR; 2a. The non-compliance of the AI system with the requirements laid down in Article 10 shall be subject to administrative fines of up to 5700 000 EUR: .
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2899 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) non-compliance with the prohibition of the artificial intelligence practices referred to in Article 5;deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2903 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) non-compliance of the AI system with the requirements laid down in Article 10.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2911 #
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 2500 000 EUR.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2913 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 5
5. The rights of defense of the parties concerned shall be fully respected in the proceedings. They shall be entitled to have access to the European Data Protection Supervisor’s file, subject to the legitimate interest of individuals or undertakings in the protection of their personal data or business secrets.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2917 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 73 – paragraph 2
2. The delegation of power referred to in Article 4, Article 7(1), Article 11(3), Article 43(5) and (6, Article 48(5) and Article 48(5)68a shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time from [entering into force of the Regulation].
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2921 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 73 – paragraph 3
3. The delegation of power referred to in Article 4, Article 7(1), Article 11(3), Article 43(5) and (6, Article 48(5) and Article 48(5)68a may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2932 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 73 – paragraph 5
5. Any delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 4, Article 7(1), Article 11(3), Article 43(5) and (6) and, Article 48(5) and 68d shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed by either the European Parliament or the Council within a period of three months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by three months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2953 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 83 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
The requirements laid down in this Regulation shall be taken into account, where applicable,apply 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.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2960 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 83 – paragraph 2
2. This Regulation shall apply to the high-risk AI systems, other than the ones referred to in paragraph 1, that have been placed on the market or put into service before [date of application of this Regulation referred to in Article 85(2)], only if, from that date, those systems are subject to significant changes in their design or intended purpose.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2965 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 84 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission shall assess the need for amendment of the list in Annex III, including the extension of existing area headings or addition of new area headings, the list of prohibited practices in Article 5, and the list of AI systems requiring additional transparency measures, once a year following the entry into force of this Regulation.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2985 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 84 – paragraph 6
6. In carrying out the evaluations and reviews referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 the Commission shall take into account the positions and findings of the Board, of the European Parliament, of the Council, and of equality bodies and other relevant bodies or sources, and shall consult relevant external stakeholders, in particular those potentially affected by the AI system, as well as stakeholders from academia and civil society.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2990 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 84 – paragraph 7
7. The Commission shall, if necessary, submit appropriate proposals to amend this Regulation, in particular taking into account developments in technology, the effect of AI systems on health and safety, fundamental rights, the environment, equality, and accessibility for persons with disabilities, and in the light of the state of progress in the information society.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2997 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 84 – paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. To guide the evaluations and reviews referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4, the Board shall undertake to develop an objective and participative methodology for the evaluation of risk level based on the criteria outlined in the relevant articles and inclusion of new systems in: the list in Annex III, including the extension of existing area headings or addition of new area headings; the list of prohibited practices in Article 5; and the list of AI systems requiring additional transparency measures.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 2999 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 84 a (new)
Article 84 a New Article 84a Amendments to Directive (EU) 2020/1828 on Representative Actions for the Protection of the Collective Interests of Consumers The following is added to Annex I: "(X) Regulation laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). Artificial Intelligence (AI)
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3010 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TECHNIQUES AND APPROACHESreferred to in Article 3, point 1 (a) Machine learning approaches, including supervised, unsupervised and reinforcement learning, using a wide variety of methods including deep learning; (b) Logic- and knowledge-based approaches, including knowledge representation, inductive (logic) programming, knowledge bases, inference and deductive engines, (symbolic) reasoning and expert systems; (c) Statistical approaches, Bayesian estimation, search and optimization methods.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3058 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a
(a) AI systems intended to be used for the ‘real-time’ and ‘post’ remote biometric identification of natural persons;deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3096 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 2 a (new)
2 a. Vulnerable groups: a) AI systems intended to be used by children in a way that may seriously affect a child’s personal development, such as by educating the child in a broad range of areas not limited to areas which parents or guardians can reasonably foresee at the time of the purchase; b) AI systems, such as virtual assistants, intended to be used by natural persons for taking decisions with regard to their private lives that have legal effects or similarly significantly affect the natural persons;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3099 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b
(b) AI systems intended to be used for the purpose of assessing students in educational and vocational training institutions and for assessing participants in tests commonly required for admission to educational institutions. or monitoring of students during exams, for determining learning objectives, and for allocating personalised learning tasks to students;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3115 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b
(b) AI intended to be used for making decisions on promotion and termination of work-related contractual relationships,affecting the initiation, establishment, implementation, promotion and termination of an employment relationship, including AI systems intended to support collective legal and regulatory matters, particularly for task allocation and for monitoring and evaluating performance and behavior of persons or in matters of training or further education in such relationships.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3120 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 5 – introductory part
5. Access to and enjoyment of essential private services and public services and benefits, including access to products:
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3129 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point b
(b) AI systems intended to be used to evaluate the creditworthiness of natural persons or establish their credit score, with the exception of AI systems put into service by small scale providers for their own use;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3137 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point b – point i (new)
i) to evaluate the creditworthiness of natural persons or establish their credit score,
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3138 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point b – point ii (new)
ii) to evaluate the behaviour of natural persons such as with regard to complaints or the exercise of statutory or contractual rights in order to draw conclusions for their future access to private or public services,
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3139 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point b – point iii (new)
iii) for making individual risk assessments of natural persons in the context of access to essential private and public services, including insurance contracts, or
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3140 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point b – point iv (new)
iv) for personalized pricing within the meaning of Article 6 (1) (ea) of Directive 2011/83/EU, with the exception of AI systems put into service by small scale providers of AI systems for their own use;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3157 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point b
(b) AI systems intended to be used by law enforcement authorities as polygraphs and similar tools or to detect the emotional state of a natural person;deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3165 #
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 their behalf to detect deep fakes as referred to in article 52(3) and in point 8a(a) and (b) of this Annex;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3170 #
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 their behalf for evaluation of the reliability of evidence in the course of investigation or prosecution of criminal offences;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3193 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point a
(a) AI systems intended to be used by competent public authorities as polygraphs and similar tools or to detect the emotional state of a natural person;deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3200 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point b
(b) AI systems intended to be used by competent public authorities to assess a risk, including a security risk, a risk of irregular immigration, or a health risk, posed by a natural person who intends to enter or has entered into the territory of a Member State;deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3209 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point d
(d) AI systems intended to assist competent public authorities for the examination of applications for asylum, visa and residence permits and associated complaints with regard to the eligibility of the natural persons applying for a status.deleted
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3238 #
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, except where the content forms part of an evidently artistic, creative or fictional and analogous work; (b) AI systems intended to be used to generate or manipulate audio or video content that appreciably resembles existing natural persons, in a manner that significantly distorts or fabricates the original situation, meaning, content, or context and would falsely appear to a person to be authentic, except where the content forms part of an evidently artistic, creative or fictional cinematographic and analogous work.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3241 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – paragraph 1 – point 8 a (new)
8 a. Others a) AI systems intended to be used for the delivery of online advertising to internet users
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3246 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex IV – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a
(a) its intended purpose or reasonably foreseeable use, the person/s developing the system the date and the version of the system;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3274 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex IV – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new)
3 a. A description of the appropriateness of the performance metrics for the specific AI system.
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3275 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex IV – paragraph 1 – point 3 b (new)
3 b. Detailed information about the carbon footprint and the energy efficiency of the AI system, in particular with regard to the development of hardware, computational resources, as well as algorithm design and training processes;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE
Amendment 3276 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex IV – paragraph 1 – point 3 c (new)
3 c. Information about the computational resources required for the functioning of the AI system and its expected energy consumption during its use;
2022/06/13
Committee: IMCOLIBE