Legalithm logo
Chapter XII, PenaltiesArticle 98

Article 98: Committee procedure

Applies from 2 Dec 20275 min readEUR-Lex verified Aug 2026

Article 98 establishes the committee procedure for the AI Act. The Commission is assisted by a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 (the Comitology Regulation). Where reference is made to Article 98(2), the examination procedure under Article 5 of that Regulation applies. This committee supports the Commission in adopting implementing acts under the AI Act.

Start free assessmentAll articles

Who does this apply to?

  • -EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies acting as providers or deployers of AI systems
  • -The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) as the enforcement authority for Union bodies
  • -Compliance teams within EU institutions responsible for AI governance
  • -AI providers supplying systems to EU institutions (indirectly, the institution as deployer bears the obligation)

Scenarios

An EU agency deploys a social scoring AI system to prioritise enforcement actions against companies, assigning general trustworthiness scores based on social behaviour data. This constitutes a prohibited practice under Article 5.

The EDPS may impose a fine of up to EUR 1,500,000 on the EU agency for violating the Article 5 prohibition on social scoring AI systems.
Ref. Art. 98(1)(a), Art. 5

An EU body uses a high-risk AI system for staff recruitment without completing the required fundamental rights impact assessment under Article 27 or registering the system in the EU database under Article 49.

The EDPS may impose a fine of up to EUR 750,000 for non-compliance with the AI Act's high-risk obligations. The EDPS will consider mitigating factors such as whether the body cooperated and took remedial action.
Ref. Art. 98(1)(b)

What Article 98 does (in plain terms)

Article 98 is a comitology provision, not the fine regime for Union institutions. That is Article 100.

1. The Commission is assisted by a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011. 2. Where reference is made to Article 98(2), Article 5 of that Regulation (the examination procedure) applies.

The EUR 1 500 000 and EUR 750 000 ceilings for Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, which an earlier version of this page carried, belong to Article 100 and are imposed by the EDPS.

How Article 98 connects to the rest of the Act

  • Article 97: delegated acts, subject to Parliament and Council scrutiny, which are distinct from implementing acts.
  • Article 92: implementing acts on evaluation arrangements, adopted under Article 98(2).
  • Article 99: penalties on operators, not on Union institutions.
  • Article 100: administrative fines on Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies.
  • Article 113: dates of application.

Practical guidance

Track draft implementing acts covering arrangements, forms and evaluation procedures. They go through the Article 98 committee, not the three-month objection window in Article 97. For the exposure of Union institutions to fines, see Article 100.

Official wording: Article 98

Article 98

Committee procedure

1. The Commission shall be assisted by a committee. That committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.

2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.

Recitals and legislative context

The recitals of the consolidated Regulation on EUR-Lex cover comitology and implementing acts. An earlier version of this page attached the recitals on the accountability of Union institutions to Article 98. That regime is Article 100, not Article 98. Use the official preamble on EUR-Lex and do not rely on unofficial recital lists without checking against the authentic text.

Compliance checklist

  • Inventory all AI systems deployed or provided by the EU institution and classify them under the AI Act's risk framework.
  • Conduct an Article 5 audit to confirm no prohibited AI practices are in use (highest fine tier).
  • Appoint or designate an AI compliance function within the institution, coordinating with the existing Data Protection Officer.
  • Complete fundamental rights impact assessments (Article 27) for all Annex III high-risk AI deployments.
  • Register high-risk AI systems in the EU database under Article 49.
  • Establish a cooperation protocol with the EDPS for AI Act matters, separate from existing EUDPR interactions.
  • Document all compliance actions, risk mitigations, and internal decisions for use as mitigating evidence under Article 98 criteria.
Read the official text on EUR-Lex

Assess your institution's AI Act exposure, start the free assessment.

Start free assessment

Frequently asked questions

Why are the fines for EU institutions so much lower than for private companies?

EU institutions operate on public budgets funded by Member States, not on commercial revenue. The lower ceilings (EUR 1.5M vs EUR 35M) reflect this reality while still providing a meaningful deterrent and institutional accountability signal. The EDPS also has non-monetary enforcement tools (recommendations, reprimands) that complement fines.

Who within the EU institution is liable, the institution itself or individual officials?

Article 98 imposes fines on the institution, body, office, or agency as an entity, not on individual officials. However, individual liability under EU staff regulations or national law may apply separately for officials who knowingly directed non-compliant AI use.

Does Article 98 also apply to the Commission itself?

Yes. 'Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies' includes the European Commission, Parliament, Council, and all EU agencies. Any of these acting as an AI provider or deployer falls within the EDPS's enforcement scope under Article 98.