+Artikel 6 Klassificeringsregler for højrisiko-AI-systemer
---+Artikel 6 1.
---+Artikel 6 1a.
---+Artikel 6 1b.
---+Artikel 6 1c.
---+Artikel 6 2.
---+Artikel 6 3.
---+Artikel 6 4.
---+Artikel 6 5.
---+Artikel 6 6.
---+Artikel 6 7.
---+Artikel 6 8.

Artikel 6 Klassificeringsregler for højrisiko-AI-systemer

-

1. Oversigt

,
Artikel 6 1.

Uanset om et AI-system bringes i omsætning eller ibrugtages uafhængigt af de i litra a) og b) omhandlede produkter, betragtes AI-systemet som højrisiko, hvis begge følgende betingelser er opfyldt:

a) 

AI-systemet tilsigtes anvendt som en sikkerhedskomponent i et produkt, eller AI-systemet er i sig selv et produkt, der er omfattet af den EU-harmoniseringslovgivning, der er anført i bilag I.

b) 

Det produkt, hvis sikkerhedskomponent i henhold til litra a) er AI-systemet, eller AI-systemet selv som et produkt skal underkastes en overensstemmelsesvurdering foretaget af en tredjepart med henblik på omsætning eller ibrugtagning af produktet i henhold til den EU-harmoniseringslovgivning, der er anført i bilag I.
Artikel 6 1a.
Med henblik på denne forordning, herunder denne artikels stk. 1, betragtes AI-systemer, der udelukkende anvendes til ikkesikkerhedsrelaterede aspekter af brugerbistand, optimering af ydeevne, tjenestens effektivitet, automatisering eller bekvemmelighed eller kvalitetskontrol, ikke som sikkerhedskomponenter.
Artikel 6 1b.
Uanset stk. 1a betragtes AI-systemer, hvis svigt eller funktionsfejl vil bringe sundhed og sikkerhed i fare, som sikkerhedskomponenter.
Artikel 6 1c.
Et produkt, der skal underkastes en overensstemmelsesvurdering udført af tredjepart udelukkende på grund af andre risici end risici for sundhed og sikkerhed, navnlig risici i forbindelse med distribution af radiofrekvenser eller elektromagnetisk interferens, som ikke påvirker sundhed og sikkerhed, anses ikke for at opfylde betingelsen i stk. 1, litra b).
Artikel 6 2.
Ud over de højrisiko-AI-systemer, der er omhandlet i stk. 1, betragtes de AI-systemer, der er omhandlet i bilag III, også som højrisiko.
Artikel 6 3.
Uanset stk. 2 betragtes et AI-system, der er omhandlet i bilag III, ikke som højrisiko, hvis det ikke udgør en væsentlig risiko for skade på sundheden, sikkerheden eller fysiske personers grundlæggende rettigheder, herunder ved ikke i væsentlig grad at påvirke resultatet af beslutningstagning.

Første afsnit finder anvendelse, hvis enhver af følgende betingelser er opfyldt:

a) 

AI-systemet tilsigtes at udføre en snæver proceduremæssig opgave

b) 

AI-systemet tilsigtes at forbedre resultatet af en tidligere afsluttet menneskelig aktivitet

c) 

AI-systemet tilsigtes at påvise beslutningsmønstre eller afvigelser fra tidligere beslutningsmønstre og er ikke tiltænkt at skulle erstatte eller påvirke en tidligere afsluttet menneskelig vurdering uden en ordentlig menneskelig gennemgang, eller

d) 

AI-systemet tilsigtes at udføre en forberedende opgave inden en vurdering, der er relevant for de anvendelsestilfælde, der er anført i bilag III.

Uanset første afsnit betragtes et AI-system, der er omhandlet i bilag III, altid som højrisiko, hvis AI-systemet udfører profilering af fysiske personer.
Artikel 6 4.
En udbyder, som finder, at et AI-system, der er omhandlet i bilag III, ikke er højrisiko, skal dokumentere sin vurdering, inden det pågældende system bringes i omsætning eller ibrugtages. En sådan udbyder er underlagt registreringsforpligtelsen i artikel 49, stk. 2. Efter anmodning fra de nationale kompetente myndigheder fremlægger udbyderen dokumentation for vurderingen.
Artikel 6 5.
Kommissionen udarbejder efter høring af Det Europæiske Udvalg for Kunstig Intelligens (»AI-udvalget«) og senest den 2. februar 2026 retningslinjer, der præciserer den praktiske gennemførelse af denne artikel i overensstemmelse med artikel 96, sammen med en omfattende liste over praktiske eksempler på anvendelsestilfælde af AI-systemer, der er højrisiko og ikke højrisiko.
Artikel 6 6.
Kommissionen tillægges beføjelser til at vedtage delegerede retsakter i overensstemmelse med artikel 97 for at ændre nærværende artikels stk. 3, andet afsnit, ved at tilføje nye betingelser til dem, der er fastsat i nævnte stykke, eller ved at ændre dem, hvis der foreligger konkret og pålidelig dokumentation for, at der findes AI-systemer, som hører under anvendelsesområdet i bilag III, men som ikke udgør en væsentlig risiko for skade på fysiske personers sundhed, sikkerhed eller grundlæggende rettigheder.
Artikel 6 7.
Kommissionen vedtager delegerede retsakter i overensstemmelse med artikel 97 for at ændre nærværende artikels stk. 3, andet afsnit, ved at lade enhver af de i nævnte stykke fastsatte betingelser udgå, hvis der foreligger konkret og pålidelig dokumentation for, at dette er nødvendigt for at opretholde det beskyttelsesniveauet for sundheden, sikkerheden og de grundlæggende rettigheder, der er fastsat ved denne forordning.
Artikel 6 8.
Enhver ændring af betingelserne i stk. 3, andet afsnit, vedtaget i overensstemmelse med denne artikels stk. 6 og 7, må ikke reducere det overordnede beskyttelsesniveau for sundheden, sikkerheden og de grundlæggende rettigheder, der er fastsat ved denne forordning, og sikrer overensstemmelse med de delegerede retsakter, der er vedtaget i henhold til artikel 7, stk. 1, og tager hensyn til den markedsmæssige og teknologiske udvikling.

1.1 Referencer

1.2 Identificerede krav

1.3 Relaterede standarder

2. Identificerede krav

Krav

3. Relaterede standarder

Standarder
SCF AI & Autonomous Technologies High Risk Designations

Description

Mechanisms exist to designate Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) "High Risk" if one (1), or more, of the following criteria are met:
(1) AAT is used as a safety component of a product or service;
(2) AAT poses a significant risk of harm to an individual's health, safety or fundamental rights; and/or
(3) AAT materially influences the outcome of an individual's decision making.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Document criteria for high-risk AI use and review before deployment

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ AI risk classification checklist with high-risk criteria

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ Formal AI risk classification policy
∙ High-risk designation process

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ AI risk management framework with formal high-risk designation process
∙ Risk committee review

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Enterprise AI risk classification framework
∙ Automated risk scoring
∙ Legal/compliance review for high-risk AI
∙ Regulatory compliance mapping (e.g., EU AI Act)

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 Performed Informally

SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Artificial Intelligence (AI)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.

Level 3 Well Defined

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Artificial Intelligence Governance (AIG) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AAT domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of AI governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., dedicated AI governance platform).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to designate AAT "High Risk" if one(1), or more, of the following criteria are met:
(1) AAT is used as a safety component of a product or service;
(2) AAT poses a significant risk of harm to an individual's health, safety or fundamental rights; and/or
(3) AAT materially influences the outcome of an individual's decision making.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
SCF High-Risk Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) Categorization

Description

Mechanisms exist to categorize Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) as "High Risk" if it poses a significant risk of harm to an individual's:
(1) Health;
(2) Safety; and/or
(3) Fundamental human rights.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Identify systems that could harm people if misused (e.g., safety devices, sensitive personal data)

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ High-risk categorization field in asset inventory
∙ Criteria for high-risk classification

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ High-risk TAAS categorization in CMDB based on potential harm to individuals or society
∙ Enhanced controls for high-risk assets

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ Formal high-risk categorization criteria (e.g., aligned with EU AI Act, safety impact)
∙ Risk-based control baselines for high-risk TAAS

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Enterprise high-risk asset categorization program integrated with risk management and regulatory obligations
∙ Enhanced assurance for high-risk TAAS

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 Performed Informally

SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Asset Management (AST) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AST domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AST domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AST domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Asset management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ The IT department establishes, maintains and updates an inventory that contains a listing of all organizational-owned TAASD, at a minimum covering common devices (e.g., laptops, workstations and servers).

Level 3 Well Defined

Asset Management (AST) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AST domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AST domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An IT Asset Management (ITAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AST domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of ITAM operations (e.g., ITAM platform, (e.g., Configuration Management Database (CMBD) Asset Management solution).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AST domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to categorize a system and/or service as "High Risk" if it poses a significant risk of harm to an individual's:
(1) Health;
(2) Safety; and/or
(3) Fundamental human rights.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.