Skip to main content
European Commission logo
AI Act Service Desk

AI Act Explorer

Recitals
Chapter I: General Provisions
Chapter II: Prohibited AI Practices
Chapter III: High-Risk AI Systems

Section 1: Classification of AI Systems as High-Risk

Section 2: Requirements for High-Risk AI Systems

Section 3: Obligations of Providers and Deployers of High-Risk AI Systems and Other Parties

Section 4: Notifying Authorities and Notified Bodies

Section 5: Standards, Conformity Assessment, Certificates, Registration

Chapter IV: Transparency Obligations for Providers and Deployers of Certain AI Systems
Chapter V: General-Purpose AI Models
Chapter VI: Measures in Support of Innovation
Chapter VII: Governance
Chapter VIII: EU Database for High-Risk AI Systems
Chapter IX: Post-Market Monitoring, Information Sharing and Market Surveillance

Section 1: Post-Market Monitoring

Section 2: Sharing of Information on Serious Incidents

Section 3: Enforcement

Section 4: Remedies

Section 5: Supervision, Investigation, Enforcement and Monitoring in Respect of Providers of General-Purpose AI Models

Chapter X: Codes of Conduct and Guidelines
Chapter XI: Delegation of Power and Committee Procedure
Chapter XII: Penalties
Chapter XIII: Final Provisions
Annexes

Recital 61

Certain AI systems intended for the administration of justice and democratic processes should be classified as high-risk, considering their potentially significant impact on democracy, the rule of law, individual freedoms as well as the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial. In particular, to address the risks of potential biases, errors and opacity, it is appropriate to qualify as high-risk AI systems intended to be used by a judicial authority or on its behalf to assist judicial authorities in researching and interpreting facts and the law and in applying the law to a concrete set of facts. AI systems intended to be used by alternative dispute resolution bodies for those purposes should also be considered to be high-risk when the outcomes of the alternative dispute resolution proceedings produce legal effects for the parties. The use of AI tools can support the decision-making power of judges or judicial independence, but should not replace it: the final decision-making must remain a human-driven activity. The classification of AI systems as high-risk should not, however, extend to AI systems intended for purely ancillary administrative activities that do not affect the actual administration of justice in individual cases, such as anonymisation or pseudonymisation of judicial decisions, documents or data, communication between personnel, administrative tasks.

This Recital relates to