Article 94: Procedural Rights of Providers of GPAI Models

Article 94 is the due process guarantee for GPAI model providers facing enforcement. It ensures that AI Office enforcement is not arbitrary or one-sided. Its core elements:

1. Right to be heard: Before the AI Office takes any decision affecting a GPAI model provider, the provider must be given the opportunity to be heard. This means the provider can submit written observations, present evidence, and make arguments before any adverse decision is adopted. 2. Right of access to the file: The provider has the right to access the AI Office's enforcement file — the evidence, complaints, and analysis on which the AI Office bases its proceedings. This ensures the provider can understand the case against it and respond effectively. 3. Trade secret protection for third parties: File access is subject to the legitimate interest of other parties in protecting their trade secrets. This means the AI Office may redact third-party commercial secrets from the file, but must still provide sufficient information for the provider to exercise its defence. 4. Full right of defence: The provider's right of defence must be fully respected throughout the enforcement procedure. This overarching guarantee imports general principles of EU administrative law, including the right to legal representation, the right to respond to evidence, and the presumption of compliance until proven otherwise.

These rights mirror the procedural guarantees in EU competition law (Articles 101–102 TFEU proceedings), reflecting the AI Act's recognition that GPAI enforcement decisions can have significant commercial consequences.

• Article 93 — Power to request measures: Article 94 procedural rights apply throughout the Article 93 enforcement process, from initial requests through to formal compliance decisions.
• Article 100 — Fines for providers of GPAI models: before the Commission imposes fines under Article 100, Article 94 rights must be respected. The right to be heard is particularly critical before any financial penalty.
• Article 96 — Right to an effective judicial remedy: if the AI Office or Commission takes a decision despite alleged procedural rights violations, the provider can seek judicial review before the Court of Justice of the EU.
• Article 113 — Application dates: Article 94 applies from 2 August 2026.

For GPAI model providers under AI Office investigation:

1. Engage early and formally — As soon as you receive any communication from the AI Office under Article 93, formally invoke your Article 94 rights. Request a clear timeline for the procedure, including deadlines for submissions. 2. Request file access promptly — Exercise your right of access to the AI Office's file at the earliest opportunity. Understanding the evidence against you is essential to preparing an effective response. Document any redactions and assess whether they impair your ability to defend yourself. 3. Submit comprehensive written responses — When exercising your right to be heard, provide detailed, evidence-based submissions. Attach supporting documentation, expert reports, and any evidence of compliance efforts. Vague or late responses weaken your position. 4. Preserve privilege — Communications with external legal counsel are protected by legal professional privilege. Keep privilege records organised and clearly marked. 5. Monitor for procedural violations — If the AI Office takes a decision without affording you the opportunity to be heard, or denies file access without proper justification, document the violation and preserve it as a ground for judicial review under Article 96. 6. Consider settlement — If the evidence supports a finding of non-compliance, proactive remediation combined with cooperation may be more effective than adversarial defence, particularly given the Article 91 mitigating factors for cooperation.

Article 94

Procedural rights of economic operators of the general-purpose AI model

Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the providers of the general-purpose AI model, without prejudice to more specific procedural rights provided for in this Regulation.