# Notifying Authorities — legal context bundle > Curated from overview.legal on 2026-08-22. Canonical page: https://overview.legal/topics/notifying-authorities-procedures-ai > Sources are cited per item. Verify against the official texts before relying on them. This topic is needed to specifically address the procedures, requirements, timelines, and mechanisms for notifying authorities about AI systems, incidents, and compliance matters under the AI Act, which is a distinct regulatory obligation not fully captured by existing topics. ## Overview ## Legal Framework The AI Act establishes specific notification obligations to national competent authorities, with key procedures detailed in Articles 16(3), 17(5), 19(2), 20(4), 26(3), 28(4), 50, and 73. These articles mandate that providers of high-risk AI systems notify the relevant market surveillance authority before placing such systems on the market or putting them into service. The notification must include detailed technical documentation and a declaration of conformity. Furthermore, providers are required to report any serious incident or any malfunction constituting a significant risk to Article 73 authorities without undue delay, and in any event, not later than 15 days after becoming aware of the incident. ## Practical Application The notification framework under the AI Act creates a proactive supervisory mechanism. While the authoritative T&C commentary on the GDPR outlines the general tasks and powers of supervisory authorities, the AI Act provisions are more prescriptive and sector-specific. The requirement to notify *before* placing a system on the market is a key distinction, shifting compliance from a reactive to a pre-emptive model. The technical documentation submitted must be sufficiently detailed to allow the authority to assess compliance with the Act's requirements. The incident reporting obligation under Article 73 is interpreted broadly; any malfunction that could lead to a serious risk to health, safety, or fundamental rights triggers the duty to notify, irrespective of whether the incident has already materialized into harm. The 15-day timeline is strict and begins from the moment the provider becomes aware of a potential issue. ## Key Considerations * **Pre-Market Notification is Mandatory:** For high-risk AI systems, you cannot launch your product or service without first notifying the competent authority and submitting the complete technical documentation and conformity declaration. Build this step into your product development and launch timeline. * **Incident Reporting is Time-Sensitive and Broad:** Establish an internal rapid-response protocol to identify and assess "serious incidents" or "malfunctions." The 15-day reporting clock starts upon internal awareness, not upon full internal investigation. Err on the side of reporting if a significant risk is plausible. * **Identify the Correct National Authority:** Notification obligations are to the "market surveillance authority" designated by each Member State. Before any market entry, you must confirm the exact identity and contact procedures for the competent authority in each country where you intend to operate. ## Legislation (full text of key provisions) ### Notifying authorities *Source: AI Act, aiact-art-28-en, 2024-06-12 — https://overview.legal/posts/92442* ### Recital 149 — AI Board establishment and advisory tasks *Source: AI Act, aiact-rec-149-en, 2024-06-12 — https://overview.legal/posts/93980* In order to facilitate a smooth, effective and harmonised implementation of this Regulation a Board should be established. The Board should reflect the various interests of the AI eco-system and be composed of representatives of the Member States. The Board should be responsible for a number of advisory tasks, including issuing opinions, recommendations, advice or contributing to guidance on matters related to the implementation of this Regulation, including on enforcement matters, technical specifications or existing standards regarding the requirements established in this Regulation and providing advice to the Commission and the Member States and their national competent authorities on specific questions related to AI. In order to give some flexibility to Member States in the designation of their representatives in the Board, such representatives may be any persons belonging to public entities who should have the relevant competences and powers to facilitate coordination at national level and contribute to the achievement of the Board’s tasks. The Board should establish two standing sub-groups to provide a platform for cooperation and exchange among market surveillance authorities and notifying authorities on issues related, respectively, to market surveillance and notified bodies. The standing subgroup for market surveillance should act as the administrative cooperation group (ADCO) for this Regulation within the meaning of Article 30 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1020. In accordance with Article 33 of that Regulation, the Commission should support the activities of the standing subgroup for market surveillance by undertaking market evaluations or studies, in particular with a view to identifying aspects of this Regulation requiring specific and urgent coordination among market surveillance authorities. The Board may establish other standing or temporary sub-groups as appropriate for the purpose of examining specific issues. The Board should also cooperate, as appropriate, with relevant Union bodies, experts groups and networks active in the context of relevant Union law, including in particular those active under relevant Union law on data, digital products and services. ## Related topics - **Conformity Assessment for AI Systems** — https://overview.legal/topics/conformity-assessment-ai Provider obligations typically include conformity assessment procedures and documentation requirements, which is a specific compliance mechanism under the AI Ac - **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 - **Monitoring** — https://overview.legal/topics/monitoring Systematic observation and tracking of individuals - **Notified Bodies for AI Systems** — https://overview.legal/topics/notified-bodies-ai This topic is needed to comprehensively cover the role, responsibilities, and obligations of notified bodies in the AI Act conformity assessment framework, incl - **Market Surveillance and Control of AI Systems** — https://overview.legal/topics/market-surveillance-control-ai This new topic is needed to comprehensively cover the specific procedures, mechanisms, and authorities involved in market surveillance and control of AI systems - **Conformity Body Notification** — https://overview.legal/topics/conformity-assessment-body-notification This new topic is needed because the content specifically addresses the application and notification procedures for conformity assessment bodies under the AI Ac --- Generated by overview.legal · https://overview.legal/topics/notifying-authorities-procedures-ai · 2026-08-22