Article 65: Tasks of the AI Board
Article 65 enumerates the specific tasks of the European Artificial Intelligence Board established under Article 64. Key tasks include: advising the Commission on implementation priorities, coordinating between Member States on enforcement, collecting and sharing expertise on market surveillance, advising on harmonised standards and common specifications, contributing to uniform administrative practices, advising on GPAI model evaluation, facilitating exchange of sandbox best practices, and monitoring governance of AI development at Union level. The Board bridges national enforcement with Union-level GPAI enforcement.
Who does this apply to?
- -The AI Board fulfilling its mandate — carrying out the enumerated tasks to support consistent AI Act application across the Union
- -The Commission receiving recommendations and advice on implementation priorities, standards, delegated acts, and enforcement coordination
- -National competent authorities benefiting from cross-border coordination, shared expertise, and uniform administrative practices promoted by the Board
Scenarios
Several national authorities report different approaches to enforcing transparency obligations for general-purpose AI models. The AI Board convenes, reviews national practices, and issues a recommendation for uniform administrative procedures — including suggested documentation templates and review timelines.
A new harmonised standard for high-risk AI system testing is proposed by CEN. The AI Board evaluates whether the standard adequately covers the AI Act's risk management and accuracy requirements, and advises the Commission to request amendments before publishing the standard reference in the Official Journal.
What Article 65 covers (in plain terms)
Article 65 is the task list for the AI Board. Where Article 64 establishes the Board's composition and mandate, Article 65 specifies what the Board must actually do. The key tasks include:
(a) Implementation advice — advising the Commission on priorities for implementing the AI Act, including guidance documents, delegated acts, and implementing acts.
(b) Enforcement coordination — coordinating between Member States on enforcement matters, particularly for AI systems that operate across borders.
(c) Market surveillance expertise — collecting and sharing expertise and best practices on market surveillance and enforcement activities.
(d) Standards and common specifications — advising the Commission on the adequacy of harmonised standards and, where standards are lacking, on common specifications that providers can use for conformity assessment.
(e) Uniform administrative practices — contributing to consistent administrative procedures across Member States so that providers face predictable requirements regardless of where they operate.
(f) GPAI model evaluation — advising on the evaluation and classification of general-purpose AI models, including systemic risk assessments.
(g) Sandbox best practices — facilitating the exchange of best practices for AI regulatory sandboxes across Member States.
(h) Union-level governance monitoring — monitoring the broader development and governance of AI at Union level, including emerging risks and trends.
The GPAI dimension
The Board's role in GPAI governance is particularly significant. While the AI Office holds enforcement powers for GPAI provisions, the Board provides the advisory layer that shapes how those provisions are interpreted and applied:
- The Board advises on classification criteria for GPAI models with systemic risk.
- It reviews evaluation methodologies and recommends technical approaches for assessing GPAI capabilities.
- It helps align national-level market surveillance of downstream high-risk AI systems with Union-level GPAI enforcement by the AI Office.
This dual-layer governance (national authorities for most AI systems, AI Office for GPAI models, Board for coordination) is a distinctive feature of the AI Act's institutional design.
How Article 65 connects to the rest of the Act
- Article 64 — establishes the Board; Article 65 defines its tasks.
- Article 66 — the AI Office (executes GPAI enforcement; the Board advises).
- Article 40 — harmonised standards (the Board advises on their adequacy and adoption).
- Article 41 — common specifications (the Board advises where harmonised standards are lacking).
- Article 57 — sandboxes (the Board facilitates best-practice exchange).
- Article 88 — advisory forum (provides stakeholder input that informs the Board's work).
- Article 113 — application dates and governance timeline.
Compliance checklist
- Monitor AI Board outputs — recommendations, opinions, and best-practice guidance — as they signal how the AI Act will be interpreted and enforced in practice.
- Track Board advice on harmonised standards relevant to your AI system — standard references published in the Official Journal create a presumption of conformity.
- For GPAI model providers, follow Board recommendations on model evaluation methodologies and systemic risk classification criteria.
- If operating across multiple Member States, review Board guidance on uniform administrative practices to ensure consistent compliance documentation.
- Engage through the advisory forum (Article 88) to contribute sectoral expertise that shapes Board recommendations.
- Review sandbox best practices published through Board coordination if considering sandbox participation.
Stay ahead of AI governance developments — map your obligations with our free assessment.
Start Free AssessmentRelated Articles
Frequently asked questions
How is Article 65 different from Article 64?
Article 64 establishes the AI Board — its composition, structure, and general mandate. Article 65 lists the specific tasks the Board must carry out. Think of Article 64 as 'what the Board is' and Article 65 as 'what the Board does.'
Does the AI Board enforce the AI Act directly?
No. The Board is an advisory and coordination body. Enforcement is carried out by national competent authorities (for most provisions) and the AI Office (for GPAI provisions). The Board ensures these enforcement actions are consistent and well-informed.
How do Board recommendations on standards affect my compliance?
When the Commission publishes a harmonised standard reference in the Official Journal — potentially based on Board advice — compliance with that standard creates a presumption of conformity with the corresponding AI Act requirement. The Board's role is to ensure these standards are adequate, so its opinions influence which standards you can rely on.