# Committee Procedure under AI Act — legal context bundle > Curated from overview.legal on 2026-08-22. Canonical page: https://overview.legal/topics/committee-procedure-ai-act > Sources are cited per item. Verify against the official texts before relying on them. The content specifically addresses 'Committee procedure' as a distinct procedural mechanism under the AI Act. This topic is not adequately covered by existing topics and requires its own dedicated entry to capture the specific procedural rules, voting mechanisms, composition requirements, and decision-making processes of regulatory committees established under the AI Act framework. ## Overview ## Legal Framework Article 98 of the AI Act establishes the committee procedure governing how the European Commission exercises implementing powers conferred upon it under the regulation. This provision anchors the Commission's authority to adopt implementing acts—particularly those related to high-risk AI system classifications, technical specifications, and standardization requests—within the comitology framework set out in Regulation (EU) No 182/2011. The committee procedure ensures that Member States retain oversight over the Commission's exercise of implementing powers through a committee composed of national representatives, chaired by the Commission. Where the AI Act references implementing acts—for instance, regarding the modification of lists of high-risk AI systems under Article 7, or the specification of conformity assessment procedures—the Commission must follow the examination procedure under Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011. This means the Commission submits draft implementing measures to the committee, which delivers an opinion by qualified majority vote. If the committee approves, the Commission adopts the act; if it opposes or delivers no opinion, the Commission may still proceed unless the European Parliament or Council objects. Article 107 of the AI Act amends Regulation (EU) 2018/858 to integrate AI-specific requirements into the existing product safety framework, ensuring that when delegated acts concern AI systems that are safety components, the Chapter III, Section 2 requirements of the AI Act are taken into account. This cross-referencing illustrates how committee procedures under the AI Act interact with adjacent sectoral legislation. ## Key Developments The comitology procedure under the AI Act builds on established practice from other EU regulatory domains, particularly the GDPR's consistency mechanism under Article 63 GDPR and the European Data Protection Board's opinion-issuing functions. While no enforcement decisions have yet been rendered under the AI Act's committee procedure, the procedural architecture mirrors that used in product safety regulations where implementing acts specify technical standards and conformity assessment modalities. The examination procedure's qualified majority threshold—representing 55% of Member States accounting for at least 65% of the EU population—sets a meaningful barrier to Commission action that diverges from Member State consensus. ## Practical Guidance - **Track committee agendas**: The Commission's implementing acts under Articles 6, 7, and other provisions directly affect which AI systems are classified as high-risk. Monitor the committee's meeting schedules and draft agendas to anticipate regulatory changes that may reclassify your clients' AI systems. - **Engage through national representatives**: Since the committee comprises Member State representatives, influence is best exerted through national competent authorities. Clients with significant AI deployments should coordinate industry positions and present them to their national AI regulatory contact points before committee votes. - **Prepare for technical specification adoption**: When the Commission adopts implementing acts specifying technical standards under Article 40 or 41, conformity assessment requirements may shift. Clients should maintain adaptable compliance architectures that can accommodate new technical specifications adopted through the committee procedure. - **Assess cross-sectoral implications**: Where AI systems serve as safety components in products governed by Regulation (EU) 2018/858 or other sectoral instruments, the interplay between committee procedures under the AI Act and delegated acts under those sectoral regimes requires integrated compliance planning. - **Anticipate implementing act timelines**: The examination procedure typically requires several months from draft submission to final adoption. Use this window to assess exposure and adjust compliance programs before implementing acts enter into force. ## Legislation (full text of key provisions) ### Committee procedure *Source: AI Act, aiact-art-98-en, 2024-06-12 — https://overview.legal/posts/93517* ### Amendment to Directive (EU) 2016/797 *Source: AI Act, aiact-art-106-en, 2024-06-12 — https://overview.legal/posts/93615* In Article 5 of Directive (EU) 2016/797, the following paragraph is added:‘12. When adopting delegated acts pursuant to paragraph 1 and implementing acts pursuant to paragraph 11 concerning Artificial Intelligence systems which are safety components within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council (*), the requirements set out in Chapter III, Section 2, of that Regulation shall be taken into account. ### Amendment to Regulation (EU) 2019/2144 *Source: AI Act, aiact-art-109-en, 2024-06-12 — https://overview.legal/posts/93627* In Article 11 of Regulation (EU) 2019/2144, the following paragraph is added:‘3. When adopting the implementing acts pursuant to paragraph 2, concerning artificial intelligence systems which are safety components within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council (*), the requirements set out in Chapter III, Section 2, of that Regulation shall be taken into account. ### Amendment to Regulation (EU) No 167/2013 *Source: AI Act, aiact-art-103-en, 2024-06-12 — https://overview.legal/posts/93609* In Article 17(5) of Regulation (EU) No 167/2013, the following subparagraph is added:‘When adopting delegated acts pursuant to the first subparagraph concerning artificial intelligence systems which are safety components within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council (*), the requirements set out in Chapter III, Section 2, of that Regulation shall be taken into account. ### Amendment to Regulation (EU) No 168/2013 *Source: AI Act, aiact-art-104-en, 2024-06-12 — https://overview.legal/posts/93611* In Article 22(5) of Regulation (EU) No 168/2013, the following subparagraph is added:‘When adopting delegated acts pursuant to the first subparagraph concerning Artificial Intelligence systems which are safety components within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council (*), the requirements set out in Chapter III, Section 2, of that Regulation shall be taken into account. ### Amendment to Regulation (EU) 2018/858 *Source: AI Act, aiact-art-107-en, 2024-06-12 — https://overview.legal/posts/93617* In Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2018/858 the following paragraph is added:‘4. When adopting delegated acts pursuant to paragraph 3 concerning Artificial Intelligence systems which are safety components within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council (*), the requirements set out in Chapter III, Section 2, of that Regulation shall be taken into account. ### Recital 52 — classification of standalone high-risk AI systems *Source: AI Act, aiact-rec-52-en, 2024-06-12 — https://overview.legal/posts/93786* As regards stand-alone AI systems, namely high-risk AI systems other than those that are safety components of products, or that are themselves products, it is appropriate to classify them as high-risk if, in 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 this 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 that the Commission should be empowered to adopt, via delegated acts, to take into account the rapid pace of technological development, as well as the potential changes in the use of AI systems. ### Recital 49 — high-risk AI safety products sectoral regulations *Source: AI Act, aiact-rec-49-en, 2024-06-12 — https://overview.legal/posts/93780* As regards high-risk AI systems that are safety components of products or systems, or which are themselves products or systems falling within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (24), Regulation (EU) No 167/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (25), Regulation (EU) No 168/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (26), Directive 2014/90/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (27), Directive (EU) 2016/797 of the European Parliament and of the Council (28), Regulation (EU) 2018/858 of the European Parliament and of the Council (29), Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council (30), and Regulation (EU) 2019/2144 of the European Parliament and of the Council (31), it is appropriate to amend those acts to ensure that the Commission takes into account, on the basis of the technical and regulatory specificities of each sector, and without interfering with existing governance, conformity assessment and enforcement mechanisms and authorities established therein, the mandatory requirements for high-risk AI systems laid down in this Regulation when adopting any relevant delegated or implementing acts on the basis of those acts. ### Recital 117 — general-purpose AI model compliance codes *Source: AI Act, aiact-rec-117-en, 2024-06-12 — https://overview.legal/posts/93916* The codes of practice should represent a central tool for the proper compliance with the obligations provided for under this Regulation for providers of general-purpose AI models. Providers should be able to rely on codes of practice to demonstrate compliance with the obligations. By means of implementing acts, the Commission may decide to approve a code of practice and give it a general validity within the Union, or, alternatively, to provide common rules for the implementation of the relevant obligations, if, by the time this Regulation becomes applicable, a code of practice cannot be finalised or is not deemed adequate by the AI Office. Once a harmonised standard is published and assessed as suitable to cover the relevant obligations by the AI Office, compliance with a European harmonised standard should grant providers the presumption of conformity. Providers of general-purpose AI models should furthermore be able to demonstrate compliance using alternative adequate means, if codes of practice or harmonised standards are not available, or they choose not to rely on those. ### Recital 173 — Commission delegated powers to adapt AI rules *Source: AI Act, aiact-rec-173-en, 2024-06-12 — https://overview.legal/posts/94028* 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 conditions under which an AI system is not to be considered to be high-risk, the list of high-risk AI systems, the provisions regarding technical documentation, the content of the EU declaration of conformity the provisions regarding the conformity assessment procedures, 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, the threshold, benchmarks and indicators, including by supplementing those benchmarks and indicators, in the rules for the classification of general-purpose AI models with systemic risk, the criteria for the designation of general-purpose AI models with systemic risk, the technical documentation for providers of general-purpose AI models and the transparency information for providers of general-purpose AI models. 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-Making (55). 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. ## Guidance ### EDPB-EDPS Joint Opinion 03/2021 on the Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on European data governance (Data Governance Act) *Source: EDPB, edpb-edps-joint-opinion-032021-on-the-proposal-for-a-regulation-of-en, 2021-03-11 — https://overview.legal/posts/126050 — original: https://www.edpb.europa.eu/documents/legislative-opinion/edpb-edps-joint-opinion-032021-on-the-proposal-for-a-regulation-of_en* 1 Adopted EDPB - EDPS Joint Opinion 03 /2021 on the Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Coun cil on European data governance (Data Governance Act) Version 1.1 2 Adopted Version history Version 1.1 09 June 2021 Minor editorial changes Version 1.0 10 March 2021 Adoption of the Joint Opinion 3 Adopted 5 Adopted The European Data Protection Board and the European Data Protection Supervisor Having regard to Article 42(2) of the Regulation 2018/1725 of 23 October 2018 on… ### EDPB-EDPS Joint Opinion 03/2022 on the Proposal for a Regulation on the European Health Data Space *Source: EDPB, edpb-edps-joint-opinion-032022-on-the-proposal-for-a-regulation-on-en, 2022-07-12 — https://overview.legal/posts/125922 — original: https://www.edpb.europa.eu/documents/legislative-opinion/edpb-edps-joint-opinion-032022-on-the-proposal-for-a-regulation-on_en* Adopted 1 EDPB - EDPS Joint Opinion 03 /2022 on the Proposal for a Regulation on the European Health Data Space Adopted on 12 July 2022 Adopted 2 Adopted 3 Executive Summary With this Joint Opinion, the EDPB and the EDPS aim to draw attention to a number of overarching concerns on the Proposal on the European Health Data Space and urge the co - legislature to take decisive action. The EDPB and the EDPS note that the Proposal ai ms at supporting individuals to take control of their own health… ## Literature ### Italy’s Artificial Intelligence Act and Global AI Governance: The EU Model’s Practice and Prospects *Source: Law and Economy, 2026-02-25 — https://overview.legal/posts/132619 — original: https://doi.org/10.63593/le.2788-7049.2026.03.004* The Italian Artificial Intelligence Act, enacted on September 17, 2025, represents the first comprehensive national implementation of the European Union’s AI Act. This study examines the Italian legislation through the theoretical lens of multi-level governance, analyzing its dual function as both a “bridging legislation” that translates EU framework into domestic practice and a site of significant regulatory innovation. Through detailed textual analysis and case studies, particularly in healthc ## Related topics - **Delegation of Powers** — https://overview.legal/topics/delegation-of-powers-procedures The content specifically addresses 'Exercise of the delegation' which is a distinct procedural topic covering how delegated powers are exercised, implemented, a - **Delegated Acts** — https://overview.legal/topics/delegated-acts-adoption-procedures This content specifically addresses the procedural framework for adopting delegated acts under the AI Act, including how they apply to safety components and sec - **Annex III Classification Changes and Updates** — https://overview.legal/topics/annex-iii-classification-changes The content specifically addresses amendments to Annex III, which represents a distinct regulatory mechanism for updating high-risk AI system classifications. T - **Implementation Guidelines** — https://overview.legal/topics/commission-implementation-guidelines This content is specifically about Commission guidelines for implementing the AI Act. A dedicated topic would capture guidance documents, interpretive materials - **Artificial Intelligence** — https://overview.legal/topics/ai AI systems and their implications for data protection - **Provider Obligations for AI Systems** — https://overview.legal/topics/provider-obligations-ai The content specifically addresses obligations imposed on providers of high-risk AI systems, which is a distinct and important category of requirements that des --- Generated by overview.legal · https://overview.legal/topics/committee-procedure-ai-act · 2026-08-22