Article 96: Guidelines from the Commission on the implementation of this Regulation
Article 96 requires the Commission to develop guidelines on the practical implementation of the AI Act, covering high-risk requirements (Articles 8-15, Article 25), prohibited practices (Article 5), substantial modification, transparency obligations (Article 50), the relationship with Union harmonisation legislation, and the definition of an AI system. The Commission must pay particular attention to the needs of SMEs and start-ups. Guidelines shall be updated when deemed necessary.
Who does this apply to?
- -Providers, importers, distributors, and deployers challenging market surveillance authority decisions
- -Courts with jurisdiction to review AI Act enforcement decisions
- -Market surveillance authorities whose decisions may be judicially reviewed
- -Legal counsel advising on appeals against enforcement actions or complaint outcomes
Scenarios
A market surveillance authority orders a provider to withdraw a high-risk AI system from the market under Article 79, finding it presents an unacceptable risk. The provider disagrees with the risk assessment.
A complainant lodges a complaint under Article 86 about an AI system used for creditworthiness assessment. The market surveillance authority dismisses the complaint without adequate investigation. The complainant considers this a failure to enforce.
What Article 96 does (in plain terms)
Article 96 does not create a judicial remedy against a market surveillance authority. That right comes from Article 47 of the Charter and national procedural law. Article 96 requires the Commission to issue guidelines on:
- (a) applying the requirements and obligations in Articles 8 to 15 and Article 25
- (b) the prohibited practices in Article 5
- (c) the practical implementation of the provisions on substantial modification
- (d) the practical implementation of the transparency obligations in Article 50
- (e) the relationship with Annex I harmonisation legislation and other Union law, including consistency of enforcement
- (f) the application of the definition of an AI system
The Commission must pay particular attention to the needs of SMEs and start-ups, and update the guidelines when it considers it necessary.
How Article 96 connects to the rest of the Act
- Articles 8 to 15 and Article 25: the requirements and obligations under point (a).
- Article 5: the prohibited practices under point (b).
- Article 50: the transparency obligations under point (d).
- Article 40 and Article 41: harmonised standards and common specifications, which the guidelines take into account.
- Article 99: Member States take these guidelines into account when setting their penalty regime.
Practical guidance
Watch for publication and revision of the guidelines. They are not binding, but they steer enforcement, including penalties under Article 99(1). SMEs should expect proportionate guidance; record how you took it into account.
Official wording: Article 96
Article 96
Guidelines from the Commission on the implementation of this Regulation
1. The Commission shall develop guidelines on the practical implementation of this Regulation, and in particular on:
(a) the application of the requirements and obligations referred to in Articles 8 to 15 and in Article 25;
(b) the prohibited practices referred to in Article 5;
(c) the practical implementation of the provisions related to substantial modification;
(d) the practical implementation of transparency obligations laid down in Article 50;
(e) detailed information on the relationship of this Regulation with the Union harmonisation legislation listed in Annex I, as well as with other relevant Union law, including as regards consistency in their enforcement;
(f) the application of the definition of an AI system as set out in Article 3, point (1).
When issuing such guidelines, the Commission shall pay particular attention to the needs of SMEs including start-ups, of local public authorities and of the sectors most likely to be affected by this Regulation.
The guidelines referred to in the first subparagraph of this paragraph shall take due account of the generally acknowledged state of the art on AI, as well as of relevant harmonised standards and common specifications that are referred to in Articles 40 and 41, or of those harmonised standards or technical specifications that are set out pursuant to Union harmonisation law.
2. At the request of the Member States or the AI Office, or on its own initiative, the Commission shall update guidelines previously adopted when deemed necessary.
Recitals and legislative context
The recitals of the consolidated Regulation on EUR-Lex place the Commission's guidance role in the context of practical implementation, including attention to SMEs. An earlier version of this page attached the recitals on judicial remedy to Article 96. That is not what the authentic text covers. Use the official preamble on EUR-Lex and do not rely on unofficial recital lists without checking the order and wording against the authentic text.
Compliance checklist
- Map the competent courts for AI Act judicial review in every Member State where your AI systems are placed on the market or put into service.
- Establish a legal hold and evidence preservation protocol that activates automatically upon receipt of any market surveillance authority decision.
- Identify national procedural deadlines for filing judicial challenges against administrative decisions in each relevant jurisdiction.
- Brief management and board on the availability of judicial review as a safeguard and the associated costs and timelines.
- Ensure legal counsel is pre-briefed on the Article 96 review standard (full factual and legal review, not just procedural review).
- Coordinate with internal compliance teams to prepare a factual rebuttal pack (technical documentation, conformity evidence, risk assessments) suitable for court submission.
- Monitor case law as courts begin hearing AI Act challenges, precedents will shape enforcement practice.
Understand your enforcement exposure, start the free assessment.
Start free assessmentRelated articles
Article 79: Procedure at National Level for AI Systems Presenting a Risk
Article 80: Procedure for Dealing with AI Systems Classified by the Provider as Non-High-Risk in Application of Annex III
Article 81: Union Safeguard Procedure
Article 82: Compliant AI Systems Which Present a Risk
Article 83: Formal Non-Compliance
Article 86: Right to Explanation of Individual Decision-Making
Article 113: Entry into Force and Application Dates
Frequently asked questions
Can a complainant (not just a provider) challenge a market surveillance authority's decision?
Yes. Article 96 grants the right to an effective judicial remedy to any natural or legal person affected by a binding decision. This includes complainants who consider that the authority inadequately handled their complaint under Article 86, as well as providers and deployers subject to enforcement decisions.
Does judicial review cover the facts, or only whether the authority followed correct procedures?
Full review. Article 96 requires courts to have competence to examine all relevant questions of fact and law. This means the court can reassess the evidence, not merely check whether the authority followed the right procedure.
Which court has jurisdiction?
This depends on national procedural law. Each Member State must designate courts with jurisdiction over AI Act enforcement decisions. In practice, this is typically the administrative court system in the Member State where the authority is located.