+Article 6 Règles relatives à la classification de systèmes d’IA comme systèmes à haut risque
---+Article 6 1.
---+Article 6 1a.
---+Article 6 1b.
---+Article 6 1c.
---+Article 6 2.
---+Article 6 3.
---+Article 6 4.
---+Article 6 5.
---+Article 6 6.
---+Article 6 7.
---+Article 6 8.

Article 6 Règles relatives à la classification de systèmes d’IA comme systèmes à haut risque

-

1. Vue d’ensemble

,
Article 6 1.

Un système d’IA mis sur le marché ou mis en service, qu’il soit ou non indépendant des produits visés aux points a) et b), est considéré comme étant à haut risque lorsque les deux conditions suivantes sont remplies:

a) 

le système d’IA est destiné à être utilisé comme composant de sécurité d’un produit couvert par la législation d’harmonisation de l’Union dont la liste figure à l’annexe I, ou le système d’IA constitue lui-même un tel produit;

b) 

le produit dont le composant de sécurité visé au point a) est le système d’IA, ou le système d’IA lui-même en tant que produit, est soumis à une évaluation de conformité par un tiers en vue de la mise sur le marché ou de la mise en service de ce produit conformément à la législation d’harmonisation de l’Union dont la liste figure à l’annexe I.
Article 6 1a.
For the purposes of this Regulation, including paragraph 1 of this Article, AI systems that are solely used for non-safety related aspects of user assistance, performance optimisation, service efficiency, automation or convenience or quality control shall not qualify as safety components.
Article 6 1b.
Notwithstanding paragraph 1a, AI systems the failure or malfunctioning of which would endanger health and safety shall qualify as safety components.
Article 6 1c.
A product that is required to undergo a third-party conformity assessment solely due to risks other than risks to health and safety, in particular risks relating to the distribution of radio spectrum or electromagnetic interference that do not affect health and safety, shall not be considered as fulfilling the condition in paragraph 1, point (b).
Article 6 2.
Outre les systèmes d’IA à haut risque visés au paragraphe 1, les systèmes d’IA visés à l’annexe III sont considérés comme étant à haut risque.
Article 6 3.
Par dérogation au paragraphe 2, un système d’IA visé à l’annexe III n’est pas considéré comme étant à haut risque lorsqu’il ne présente pas de risque important de préjudice pour la santé, la sécurité ou les droits fondamentaux des personnes physiques, y compris en n’ayant pas d’incidence significative sur le résultat de la prise de décision.

Le premier alinéa s’applique lorsqu’une des conditions suivantes est remplie:

a) 

le système d’IA est destiné à accomplir un tâche procédurale étroite;

b) 

le système d’IA est destiné à améliorer le résultat d’une activité humaine préalablement réalisée;

c) 

le système d’IA est destiné à détecter les constantes en matière de prise de décision ou les écarts par rapport aux constantes habituelles antérieures et n’est pas destiné à se substituer à l’évaluation humaine préalablement réalisée, ni à influencer celle-ci, sans examen humain approprié; ou

d) 

le système d’IA est destiné à exécuter une tâche préparatoire en vue d’une évaluation pertinente aux fins des cas d’utilisation visés à l’annexe III.

Nonobstant le premier alinéa, un système d’IA visé à l’annexe III est toujours considéré comme étant à haut risque lorsqu’il effectue un profilage de personnes physiques.
Article 6 4.
Un fournisseur qui considère qu’un système d’IA visé à l’annexe III n’est pas à haut risque documente son évaluation avant que ce système ne soit mis sur le marché ou mis en service. Ce fournisseur est soumis à l’obligation d’enregistrement visée à l’article 49, paragraphe 2. À la demande des autorités nationales compétentes, le fournisseur fournit la documentation de l’évaluation.
Article 6 5.
Après consultation du Comité européen de l’intelligence artificielle (ci-après dénommé «Comité IA»), et au plus tard le 2 février 2026, la Commission fournit des lignes directrices précisant la mise en œuvre pratique du présent article, conformément à l’article 96, assorties d’une liste exhaustive d’exemples pratiques de cas d’utilisation de systèmes d’IA qui sont à haut risque et de cas d’utilisation qui ne le sont pas.
Article 6 6.
La Commission est habilitée à adopter des actes délégués conformément à l’article 97 pour modifier le paragraphe 3, deuxième alinéa, du présent article en ajoutant de nouvelles conditions à celles qui y sont énoncées, ou en les modifiant, lorsqu’il existe des preuves concrètes et fiables de l’existence de systèmes d’IA qui relèvent du champ d’application de l’annexe III, mais qui ne présentent pas de risque important de préjudice pour la santé, la sécurité ou les droits fondamentaux des personnes physiques.
Article 6 7.
La Commission adopte des actes délégués conformément à l’article 97 afin de modifier le paragraphe 3, deuxième alinéa, du présent article en supprimant l’une des conditions qui y est établie, lorsqu’il existe des preuves concrètes et fiables attestant que cela est nécessaire pour maintenir le niveau de protection de la santé, de la sécurité et des droits fondamentaux prévu par le présent règlement.
Article 6 8.
Toute modification des conditions établies au paragraphe 3, deuxième alinéa, adoptée conformément aux paragraphe 6 et 7 du présent article ne diminue pas le niveau global de protection de la santé, de la sécurité et des droits fondamentaux prévu par le présent règlement et veille à la cohérence avec les actes délégués adoptés conformément à l’article 7, paragraphe 1, et tient compte des évolutions du marché et des technologies.

1.1 Références

1.2 Exigences identifiées

1.3 Normes associées

2. Exigences identifiées

Exigences

3. Normes associées

Normes
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.