# Delegation of Powers — legal context bundle > Curated from overview.legal on 2026-08-22. Canonical page: https://overview.legal/topics/delegation-of-powers-procedures > Sources are cited per item. Verify against the official texts before relying on them. The content specifically addresses 'Exercise of the delegation' which is a distinct procedural topic covering how delegated powers are exercised, implemented, and managed within the AI Act framework. This topic is not adequately covered by existing topics and deserves its own dedicated classification. ## Overview ## Legal Framework The exercise of delegated powers under the AI Act is governed by Article 97, which establishes the procedural conditions under which the European Commission may adopt delegated acts. The Commission's authority is not open-ended: delegation is confined to non-essential elements of the legislation and is subject to express limits set by the co-legislators. The Commission must consult designated experts from each Member State before adopting any delegated act, and the delegation itself may be revoked or lapse under conditions defined by the European Parliament and Council. This architecture mirrors the delegation framework in the Digital Services Act, where Article 87 DSA prescribes analogous procedural safeguards. The parallel structure reflects a broader EU legislative pattern: delegated acts may supplement or amend certain provisions but cannot expand the regulatory scope beyond what the enabling act permits. Under DSA Article 83, the Commission may also adopt implementing acts to set practical procedural arrangements, including hearing procedures and information disclosure protocols, provided it first publishes draft provisions and invites stakeholder comment within a specified timeframe. ## Key Developments The delegation provisions have begun generating practical effects. The Commission's authority under Article 15-related delegation powers extends to specifying what information standardized icons must display and the procedures for their development — a concrete example of how non-essential elements are fleshed out through delegated acts rather than left to Member State discretion. The procedural consultation requirement has emerged as a meaningful constraint. Where the Commission fails to properly engage the expert group mechanism, delegated acts face legal vulnerability. The DSA's implementing-act framework under Article 83 reinforces that stakeholder consultation is not merely procedural courtesy but a condition of validity: draft provisions must be published, and interested parties must be given a defined window to submit observations before adoption. ## Practical Guidance - **Map delegation boundaries precisely**: Identify which AI Act provisions expressly authorize delegated acts and distinguish essential elements (reserved to the legislature) from non-essential elements (open to delegation). Compliance strategies should not assume the Commission will fill gaps beyond its delegated mandate. - **Monitor expert group consultations**: Track when the Commission consults Member State experts under Article 97, as these consultations signal forthcoming delegated acts and provide a window to influence their content. - **Engage in DSA-style stakeholder comment periods**: Where implementing acts are contemplated (as under DSA Article 83), submit observations within the published deadline. This is a concrete opportunity to shape procedural arrangements before they are finalized. - **Assess revocation and lapse risks**: Track European Parliament and Council actions regarding potential revocation of specific delegations, as this can alter the regulatory landscape mid-compliance cycle. - **Audit icon and transparency obligations**: For AI systems subject to Article 15-type requirements, anticipate that delegated acts will specify icon content and standardization procedures — build flexibility into compliance design to accommodate these specifications as they emerge. ## Legislation (full text of key provisions) ### Exercise of the delegation *Source: AI Act, aiact-art-97-en, 2024-06-12 — https://overview.legal/posts/93503* ### 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 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) 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 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. ### 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 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. ## 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… ### EDPB-EDPS Joint Opinion 02/2023 on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of the digital euro *Source: EDPB, edpb-edps-joint-opinion-022023-on-the-proposal-for-a-regulation-of-en, 2023-10-17 — https://overview.legal/posts/125823 — original: https://www.edpb.europa.eu/documents/legislative-opinion/edpb-edps-joint-opinion-022023-on-the-proposal-for-a-regulation-of_en* Adopted 2 Adopted 3 Executive summary Two years after the launch of the investigation phase on the issuance of a digital euro by the European Central Bank (ECB), the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union will, in the coming months, examine the Proposal for a Regulation establishing the digital euro as central bank digital currency. Having regard to the particular importance of the digital euro for the fundamental rights to privacy and to the protection of personal data, the… ## Related topics - **Committee Procedure under AI Act** — https://overview.legal/topics/committee-procedure-ai-act The content specifically addresses 'Committee procedure' as a distinct procedural mechanism under the AI Act. This topic is not adequately covered by existing t - **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 - **High-Risk AI Classification** — https://overview.legal/topics/high-risk-ai-classification The content specifically addresses classification rules for high-risk AI systems under the AI Act, which is a distinct regulatory concept requiring its own dedi --- Generated by overview.legal · https://overview.legal/topics/delegation-of-powers-procedures · 2026-08-22