Source: OJ L, 2024/1689, 12.7.2024 · Consolidated text

Article 43 Conformity assessment

Summary What does Article 43 of the AI act regulation say?

This article sets out the conformity assessment procedures that providers of high-risk AI systems must follow to demonstrate compliance with the regulation's requirements.

It differentiates between categories of high-risk AI systems, primarily those listed under point 1 of Annex III versus those under points 2 to 8, and also addresses systems already governed by existing Union harmonisation legislation under Annex I.

The article connects closely to Articles 40 and 41, as the availability or absence of harmonised standards and common specifications directly determines which assessment route a provider must take.

Importantly, a substantial modification to a system already assessed triggers a fresh conformity assessment, though pre-determined changes to learning systems that were documented at the time of the original assessment are carved out from that obligation.

Important points:

Providers of high-risk AI systems must choose a conformity assessment procedure based on the category of their system and whether harmonised standards or common specifications exist and have been applied — with notified body involvement required in certain cases.
Providers of high-risk AI systems under points 2 to 8 of Annex III must follow an internal control procedure without the involvement of a notified body, though the Commission may change this via delegated acts.
A substantial modification to a high-risk AI system requires a new conformity assessment procedure, regardless of whether the system is being redistributed or remains with its current deployer.

Springlex's summary of the article is a reading aid, not a substitute for the legal text.

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 Section 2, the provider has applied harmonised standards referred to in Article 40, or, where applicable, common specifications referred to in Article 41, the provider shall opt for one of the following conformity assessment procedures based on:
  1. the internal control referred to in Annex VI; or
  2. 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.
2. In demonstrating the compliance of a high-risk AI system with the requirements set out in Section 2, the provider shall follow the conformity assessment procedure set out in Annex VII where:
  1. harmonised standards referred to in Article 40 do not exist, and common specifications referred to in Article 41 are not available;
  2. the provider has not applied, or has applied only part of, the harmonised standard;
  3. the common specifications referred to in point (a) exist, but the provider has not applied them;
  4. one or more of the harmonised standards referred to in point (a) has been published with a restriction, and only on the part of the standard that was restricted.
3. For the purposes of the conformity assessment procedure referred to in Annex VII, the provider may choose any of the notified bodies. However, where the high-risk AI system is intended to be put into service by law enforcement, immigration or asylum authorities or by Union institutions, bodies, offices or agencies, the market surveillance authority referred to in Article 74(8) or (9), as applicable, shall act as a notified body.
1. 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.
▼M1ModificationReplacedParagraph 3 replaced by Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1(19). Published in the Official Journal 24 July 2026.▲
1. For high-risk AI systems covered by the Union harmonisation legislation listed in Section A of Annex I, the provider of the system shall follow the relevant conformity assessment procedure as required in accordance with the relevant Union harmonisation legislation. The requirements set out in Section 2 of this Chapter shall apply to those high-risk AI systems and shall be part of that assessment. Assessment of the quality management system set out in Article 17 shall also be undertaken, and points 3, 4.3, 4.4. and 4.5, the fifth paragraph of point 4.6 and point 5 of Annex VII shall apply.
2. For the purposes of that conformity assessment, notified bodies which have been notified under the Union harmonisation legislation listed in Section A of Annex I shall have the power to assess the conformity of high-risk AI systems with the requirements set out in Section 2 of this Chapter, provided that the compliance of those notified bodies with the requirements laid down in Article 31(4), (5), (10) and (11) has been assessed in the context of the notification procedure in accordance with the relevant Union harmonisation legislation, which is evidenced through the assessment as part of the existing notification. Without prejudice to Article 28, such notified bodies which have been notified under the Union harmonisation legislation in Section A of Annex I, shall apply for designation in accordance with Section 4 of this Chapter by 28 January 2028.
3. Where Union harmonisation legislation listed in Section A of Annex I provides the product manufacturer with an option to rely on a conformity assessment that does not involve a third-party, provided that that manufacturer has applied harmonised standards to ensure compliance with all the relevant requirements, that manufacturer may use that option only if it has also applied harmonised standards or, where applicable, common specifications referred to in Article 41, covering all requirements set out in Section 2 of this Chapter. The classification of a product as a high-risk AI system in accordance with Article 6(1) does not affect the choice of the conformity assessment procedure provided to the manufacturers of products covered by Union harmonisation legislation listed in Section A of Annex I, including, where applicable, an option to rely on harmonised standards. The manufacturers of such products are not required to choose a conformity assessment procedure involving third-party conformity assessment only because the product includes a high-risk AI system as a safety component, if this is not required by the Union harmonisation legislation listed in Section A of Annex I.
4. Where a high-risk AI system is both covered by the Union harmonisation legislation listed in Section A of Annex I and it falls within one of the categories listed in Annex III, the provider of that system shall follow the relevant conformity assessment procedure as required pursuant to the relevant Union harmonisation legislation listed in Section A of Annex I.
1. High-risk AI systems that have already been subject to a conformity assessment procedure shall undergo a new conformity assessment procedure in the event of a substantial modification, regardless of whether the modified system is intended to be further distributed or continues to be used by the current deployer.
2. For high-risk AI systems that continue to learn after being placed on the market or put into service, changes to the high-risk AI system and its performance that have been pre-determined by the provider at the moment of the initial conformity assessment and are part of the information contained in the technical documentation referred to in point 2(f) of Annex IV, shall not constitute a substantial modification.
1. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 97 in order to amend Annexes VI and VII by updating them in light of technical progress.
1. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 97 in order to amend paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article 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 minimising 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.

Relevant recitals

Recital 78 Conformity assessment procedures

The conformity assessment procedure provided by this Regulation should apply in relation to the essential cybersecurity requirements of a product with digital elements covered by a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on horizontal cybersecurity requirements for products with digital elements and classified as a high-risk AI system under this Regulation. However, this rule should not result in reducing the necessary level of assurance for critical products with digital elements covered by a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on horizontal cybersecurity requirements for products with digital elements. Therefore, by way of derogation from this rule, high-risk AI systems that fall within the scope of this Regulation and are also qualified as important and critical products with digital elements pursuant to a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on horizontal cybersecurity requirements for products with digital elements and to which the conformity assessment procedure based on internal control set out in an annex to this Regulation applies, are subject to the conformity assessment provisions of a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on horizontal cybersecurity requirements for products with digital elements insofar as the essential cybersecurity requirements of that regulation are concerned. In this case, for all the other aspects covered by this Regulation the respective provisions on conformity assessment based on internal control set out in an annex to this Regulation should apply. Building on the knowledge and expertise of ENISA on the cybersecurity policy and tasks assigned to ENISA under the Regulation (EU) 2019/881 of the European Parliament and of the Council(³⁷), the Commission should cooperate with ENISA on issues related to cybersecurity of AI systems.

Recital 123 Conformity assessments of high-risk AI systems

In order to ensure a high level of trustworthiness of high-risk AI systems, those systems should be subject to a conformity assessment prior to their placing on the market or putting into service.

Recital 124 Conformity assessment according to existing harmonisation legislation

It is appropriate that, in order to minimise the burden on operators and avoid any possible duplication, for high-risk AI systems related to products which are covered by existing Union harmonisation legislation based on the New Legislative Framework, the compliance of those AI systems with the requirements of this Regulation should be assessed as part of the conformity assessment already provided for in that law. The applicability of the requirements of this Regulation should thus not affect the specific logic, methodology or general structure of conformity assessment under the relevant Union harmonisation legislation.

Recital 125 Limitation of third-party conformity assessments

Given the complexity of high-risk AI systems and the risks that are associated with them, it is important to develop an adequate conformity assessment procedure for high-risk AI systems involving notified bodies, so-called third party conformity assessment. However, given the current experience of professional pre-market certifiers in the field of product safety and the different nature of risks involved, it is appropriate to limit, at least in an initial phase of application of this Regulation, the scope of application of third-party conformity assessment for high-risk AI systems other than those related to products. Therefore, the conformity assessment of such systems should be carried out as a general rule by the provider under its own responsibility, with the only exception of AI systems intended to be used for biometrics.

Recital 128 Substantial modification of an AI system

In line with the commonly established notion of substantial modification for products regulated by Union harmonisation legislation, it is appropriate that whenever a change occurs which may affect the compliance of a high-risk AI system with this Regulation (e.g. change of operating system or software architecture), or when the intended purpose of the system changes, that AI system should be considered to be a new AI system which should undergo a new conformity assessment. However, changes occurring to the algorithm and the performance of AI systems which continue to ‘learn’ after being placed on the market or put into service, namely automatically adapting how functions are carried out, should not constitute a substantial modification, provided that those changes have been pre-determined by the provider and assessed at the moment of the conformity assessment.

Recital 147 Testing and experimentation facilities

It is appropriate that the Commission facilitates, to the extent possible, access to testing and experimentation facilities to bodies, groups or laboratories established or accredited pursuant to any relevant Union harmonisation legislation and which fulfil tasks in the context of conformity assessment of products or devices covered by that Union harmonisation legislation. This is, in particular, the case as regards expert panels, expert laboratories and reference laboratories in the field of medical devices pursuant to Regulations (EU) 2017/745 and (EU) 2017/746.

Table of contents

Springlex and this text is meant purely as a documentation tool and has no legal effect. No liability is assumed for its content. The authentic version of this act is the one published in the Official Journal of the European Union.