Binds: Provider (conformity)
All obligations
EU AI Act Art.41: Common specifications
Article 41 of the EU AI Act binds the provider (conformity). It requires Where the Commission has adopted common specifications by implementing act for the Chapter III Section 2 requirements or for the. This page states what it requires, who it binds and the evidence to keep. Browsing is free; the conformance kit is USD 499.
Specifics
| Instrument | Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (the EU AI Act), as amended by Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 |
|---|---|
| Article | Art.41 |
| Binds | Provider (conformity) |
| Group | Notified Bodies, Standards and Conformity Assessment |
| Evidence items | 5 |
| Linked NIST AI RMF controls | 0 |
| Linked ISO/IEC 42001 controls | 1 |
| Last updated |
Who does Art.41 bind?
The article binds the provider (conformity). The Act places each duty on a named party in the value chain, so a system can carry a provider duty and a deployer duty at once. Confirm your own position against the text; this page names the party, it does not rule on your facts.
Application is set by Article 113, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2026/1744; check the timeline. See the full timeline.
What does Art.41 require?
Where the Commission has adopted common specifications by implementing act for the Chapter III Section 2 requirements or for the Chapter V Sections 2 and 3 obligations, a provider of a high-risk AI system or of a general-purpose AI model that does not comply with them must duly justify that it has adopted technical solutions meeting those requirements or obligations to a level at least equivalent. Conformity with the common specifications, or with parts of them, gives a presumption of conformity to the extent those specifications cover the requirement or obligation in question.
This is our plain-language statement of the article, not the text of the regulation. Read the article: Art.41 (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 on EUR-Lex).
What evidence should we keep for Art.41?
| Category | Evidence to keep |
|---|---|
| Conformity | A register of the common specifications in force for the requirements the system or model is subject to |
| Conformity | For each specification not followed, a documented equivalence justification naming the technical solution adopted and the requirement it satisfies |
| Conformity | Evidence supporting the equivalence claim, such as test results or analysis, rather than an assertion of equivalence |
| Conformity | A review trigger for when a common specification is adopted, amended or repealed on publication of a harmonised standard |
| Conformity | The presumption of conformity claim scoped to the parts of the specification actually applied |
What does a linked control mean here?
A linked control is a NIST AI RMF or ISO/IEC 42001 control that the held rule set records as a topical match, with a confidence and a one-line reason. It does not establish that meeting one requirement satisfies the other, it is not legal advice, and it is not certification. Where no control is recorded, the page says so and does not guess. Sources: the NIST AI RMF and ISO/IEC 42001.
Which NIST AI RMF controls line up with Art.41?
No NIST AI RMF control is recorded as a match for this obligation in the held rule set. It is left unlinked and marked, never guessed.
Which ISO/IEC 42001 controls line up with Art.41?
1 control in the held rule set is recorded as a topical match for this obligation, each with its confidence and reason.
| Control | ISO/IEC 42001 | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
A.6.2.2 | AI system requirements and specification Departure from common specifications must be justified by equivalent technical solutions. | medium |
What does the conformance kit add for Art.41?
The kit renders this obligation into your own role checklist with the evidence register, the linked controls and a CSV export, for USD 499 one off. See what is in the kit or open it.