+Άρθρο 7 Τροποποιήσεις του παραρτήματος IIΙ
---+Άρθρο 7 1.
---+Άρθρο 7 2.
---+Άρθρο 7 3.

Άρθρο 7 Τροποποιήσεις του παραρτήματος IIΙ

1. Επισκόπηση

,
Τίτλος Κανονισμός
Άρθρο 7 1.

Ανατίθεται στην Επιτροπή η εξουσία να εκδίδει κατ’ εξουσιοδότηση πράξεις σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 97 προκειμένου να τροποποιεί το παράρτημα ΙΙΙ με την προσθήκη ή την τροποποίηση περιπτώσεων χρήσης συστημάτων ΤΝ υψηλού κινδύνου, όταν πληρούνται αμφότερες οι ακόλουθες προϋποθέσεις:

α) 

τα συστήματα ΤΝ προορίζονται να χρησιμοποιηθούν σε οποιονδήποτε από τους τομείς που απαριθμούνται στο παράρτημα ΙΙΙ·

β) 

τα συστήματα ΤΝ ενέχουν κίνδυνο βλάβης για την υγεία και την ασφάλεια ή δυσμενείς επιπτώσεις στα θεμελιώδη δικαιώματα και ο κίνδυνος αυτός είναι ισοδύναμος ή μεγαλύτερος από τον κίνδυνο βλάβης ή δυσμενών επιπτώσεων που ενέχουν τα συστήματα ΤΝ υψηλού κινδύνου τα οποία αναφέρονται ήδη στο παράρτημα III.

Άρθρο 7 2.

Κατά την αξιολόγηση της προϋπόθεσης της παραγράφου 1 στοιχείο β), η Επιτροπή λαμβάνει υπόψη τα ακόλουθα κριτήρια:

α) 

τον επιδιωκόμενο σκοπό του συστήματος ΤΝ·

β) 

τον βαθμό στον οποίο ένα σύστημα ΤΝ έχει χρησιμοποιηθεί ή είναι πιθανό να χρησιμοποιηθεί·

γ) 

τη φύση και την ποσότητα των δεδομένων που υποβάλλονται σε επεξεργασία και χρησιμοποιούνται από το σύστημα ΤΝ, ιδίως εάν υποβάλλονται σε επεξεργασία ειδικές κατηγορίες δεδομένων προσωπικού χαρακτήρα·

δ) 

τον βαθμό στον οποίο το σύστημα ΤΝ ενεργεί αυτόνομα και τη δυνατότητα ενός ανθρώπου να παρακάμψει μια απόφαση ή συστάσεις που ενδέχεται να οδηγήσουν σε πιθανή βλάβη·

ε) 

τον βαθμό στον οποίο η χρήση ενός συστήματος ΤΝ έχει ήδη προκαλέσει βλάβη στην υγεία και την ασφάλεια, έχει δυσμενείς επιπτώσεις στα θεμελιώδη δικαιώματα ή έχει εγείρει σοβαρές ανησυχίες σε σχέση με την πιθανότητα επέλευσης αυτής της βλάβης ή αυτών των δυσμενών επιπτώσεων, όπως καταδεικνύεται, για παράδειγμα, από αναφορές ή τεκμηριωμένους ισχυρισμούς που υποβάλλονται στις εθνικές αρμόδιες αρχές ή από άλλες αναφορές, κατά περίπτωση·

στ) 

τη δυνητική έκταση της εν λόγω βλάβης ή των εν λόγω δυσμενών επιπτώσεων, ιδίως όσον αφορά την ένταση και την ικανότητά τους να επηρεάζουν πλήθος προσώπων ή να επηρεάζουν δυσανάλογα μια συγκεκριμένη ομάδα προσώπων·

ζ) 

τον βαθμό στον οποίο τα δυνητικά ζημιωθέντα ή δυσμενώς θιγόμενα πρόσωπα εξαρτώνται από το αποτέλεσμα που παράγεται με ένα σύστημα ΤΝ, ιδίως διότι για πρακτικούς ή νομικούς λόγους δεν είναι ευλόγως δυνατό να εξαιρεθούν από το εν λόγω αποτέλεσμα·

η) 

τον βαθμό στον οποίο υπάρχει ανισορροπία ισχύος ή τα δυνητικά ζημιωθέντα ή δυσμενώς θιγόμενα πρόσωπα βρίσκονται σε ευάλωτη θέση σε σχέση με τον φορέα εφαρμογής ενός συστήματος ΤΝ, ιδίως λόγω κατάστασης, εξουσίας, γνώσεων, οικονομικών ή κοινωνικών περιστάσεων ή ηλικίας·

θ) 

τον βαθμό στον οποίο το αποτέλεσμα που παράγεται με τη συμμετοχή ενός συστήματος ΤΝ είναι εύκολα διορθώσιμο ή αναστρέψιμο, λαμβανομένων υπόψη των τεχνικών λύσεων που είναι διαθέσιμες για τη διόρθωση ή την αντιστροφή του, οπότε τα αποτελέσματα που έχουν δυσμενείς επιπτώσεις στην υγεία, την ασφάλεια ή τα θεμελιώδη δικαιώματα δεν θεωρούνται εύκολα διορθώσιμα ή αναστρέψιμα·

ι) 

το μέγεθος και την πιθανότητα οφέλους από την εφαρμογή του συστήματος ΤΝ για άτομα, ομάδες ή την κοινωνία γενικότερα, περιλαμβανομένων των δυνατών βελτιώσεων στην ασφάλεια των προϊόντων·

ια) 

τον βαθμό στον οποίο το ισχύον ενωσιακό δίκαιο προβλέπει:

i) 

αποτελεσματικά μέτρα επανόρθωσης σε σχέση με τους κινδύνους που ενέχει ένα σύστημα ΤΝ, με εξαίρεση τις αξιώσεις αποζημίωσης·

ii) 

αποτελεσματικά μέτρα για την πρόληψη ή την ουσιαστική ελαχιστοποίηση των εν λόγω κινδύνων.

Άρθρο 7 3.

Ανατίθεται στην Επιτροπή η εξουσία να εκδίδει κατ’ εξουσιοδότηση πράξεις σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 97 προκειμένου να τροποποιεί τον κατάλογο του παραρτήματος ΙΙΙ αφαιρώντας συστήματα ΤΝ υψηλού κινδύνου, όταν πληρούνται αμφότερες οι ακόλουθες προϋποθέσεις:

α) 

το σχετικό σύστημα ΤΝ υψηλού κινδύνου δεν ενέχει πλέον σημαντικούς κινδύνους για τα θεμελιώδη δικαιώματα, την υγεία ή την ασφάλεια, λαμβανομένων υπόψη των κριτηρίων που παρατίθενται στην παράγραφο 2·

β) 

η διαγραφή δεν μειώνει το συνολικό επίπεδο προστασίας της υγείας, της ασφάλειας και των θεμελιωδών δικαιωμάτων βάσει του ενωσιακού δικαίου.

1.1 Παραπομπές

1.2 Εντοπισμένες απαιτήσεις

1.3 Σχετικά πρότυπα

2. Εντοπισμένες απαιτήσεις

Απαιτήσεις
Πηγή Απαίτηση

3. Σχετικά πρότυπα

Πρότυπα
Πηγή Απαίτηση
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.
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.