+Airteagal 6 Rialacha aicmithe maidir le córais intleachta saorga ardriosca
---+Airteagal 6 1.
---+Airteagal 6 1a.
---+Airteagal 6 1b.
---+Airteagal 6 1c.
---+Airteagal 6 2.
---+Airteagal 6 3.
---+Airteagal 6 4.
---+Airteagal 6 5.
---+Airteagal 6 6.
---+Airteagal 6 7.
---+Airteagal 6 8.

Airteagal 6 Rialacha aicmithe maidir le córais intleachta saorga ardriosca

-

1. Forbhreathnú

,
Airteagal 6 1.

Gan beann ar cé acu a chuirtear nó nach gcuirtear córas intleachta saorga ar an margadh nó i mbun seirbhíse go neamhspleách ar na táirgí dá dtagraítear i bpointí (a) agus (b), measfar an córas intleachta saorga sin a bheith ina chóras ardriosca i gcás ina gcomhlíonfar an dá choinníoll seo a leanas:

(a) 

tá an córas intleachta saorga ceaptha lena úsáid mar chomhpháirt sábháilteachta de tháirge, nó is táirge é an córas intleachta saorga é féin, a chumhdaítear faoi reachtaíocht chomhchuibhithe an Aontais a liostaítear in Iarscríbhinn I;

(b) 

maidir leis an táirge sin ar comhpháirt sábháilteachta de, de bhun phointe (a), an córas intleachta saorga, nó an córas intleachta saorga ar táirge sábháilteachta é, ceanglaítear measúnú comhréireachta tríú páirtí a dhéanamh ar an táirge sin d’fhonn é a chur ar an margadh nó a chur i mbun seirbhíse de bhun reachtaíocht chomhchuibhithe an Aontais a liostaítear in Iarscríbhinn I.
Airteagal 6 1a.
Chun críocha an Rialacháin seo, lena n-áirítear mír 1 den Airteagal seo, ní mheasfar gur comhpháirteanna sábháilteachta iad córais intleachta saorga nach n-úsáidtear ach le haghaidh gnéithe i ndáil le cúnamh d’úsáideoirí, barrfheabhsú feidhmíochta, éifeachtúlacht seirbhíse, uathoibriú nó áisiúlacht nó rialú cáilíochta, ar gnéithe iad nach mbaineann le sábháilteacht.
Airteagal 6 1b.
D’ainneoin mhír 1a, measfar gur comhpháirteanna sábháilteachta iad córais intleachta saorga a gcuirfeadh a gcliseadh nó a mífheidhmiú sláinte agus sábháilteacht i mbaol.
Airteagal 6 1c.
Ní mheasfar go gcomhlíonann táirge an coinníoll a leagtar amach i mír 1, pointe (b), más rud é nach gceanglaítear measúnú comhréireachta tríú páirtí a dhéanamh air ach amháin mar gheall ar rioscaí, seachas rioscaí do shláinte agus do shábháilteacht, go háirithe rioscaí a bhaineann le dáileadh speictrim raidió nó trasnaíocht leictreamaighnéadach nach ndéanann difear do shláinte agus do shábháilteacht.
Airteagal 6 2.
I dteannta na gcóras intleachta saorga ardriosca dá dtagraítear i mír 1, measfar na córais intleachta saorga dá dtagraítear in Iarscríbhinn III a bheith ina gcórais ardriosca.
Airteagal 6 3.
De mhaolú ar mhír 2, ní mheasfar córas intleachta saorga dá dtagraítear in Iarscríbhinn III a bheith ina chóras ardriosca i gcás nach bhfuil riosca suntasach díobhála ann do shláinte, do shábháilteacht nó do chearta bunúsacha daoine nádúrtha, lena n-áirítear gan tionchar ábhartha a imirt ar thoradh na cinnteoireachta.

Beidh feidhm ag an gcéad fhomhír i gcás ina gcomhlíontar aon cheann de na coinníollacha seo a leanas:

(a) 

go mbeartaítear leis an gcóras intleachta saorga cúram cúng nós imeachta a dhéanamh;

(b) 

go mbeartaítear leis an gcóras intleachta saorga feabhas a chur ar thoradh gníomhaíochta arna cur i gcrích roimhe sin ag an duine;

(c) 

go mbeartaítear leis an gcóras intleachta saorga patrúin chinnteoireachta nó diallais ó phatrúin chinnteoireachta a bhí ann roimhe seo a bhrath agus nach bhfuil sé i gceist leis an gcóras sin teacht in ionad an mheasúnaithe dhaonna a cuireadh i gcrích roimhe sin ná tionchar a imirt air, gan athbhreithniú cuí daonna; nó

(d) 

go mbeartaítear leis an gcóras intleachta saorga cúram ullmhúcháin a dhéanamh maidir le measúnú atá ábhartha chun críocha na gcásanna úsáide a liostaítear in Iarscríbhinn III.

D’ainneoin na chéad fhomhíre, measfar i gcónaí gur córas ardriosca é an córas intleachta saorga dá dtagraítear in Iarscríbhinn III i gcás ina ndéanann an córas intleachta saorga próifíliú ar dhaoine nádúrtha.
Airteagal 6 4.
Déanfaidh an soláthraí a mheasann nach córas ardriosca é an córas intleachta saorga dá dtagraítear in Iarscríbhinn III, déanfaidh sé a mheasúnú a dhoiciméadú sula gcuirfear an córas sin ar an margadh nó i mbun seirbhíse. Beidh an soláthraí sin faoi réir na hoibleagáide clárúcháin a leagtar amach in Airteagal 49(2). Arna iarraidh sin do na húdaráis inniúla náisiúnta, soláthróidh an soláthraí doiciméadacht an mheasúnaithe.
Airteagal 6 5.
Déanfaidh an Coimisiún, tar éis dó dul i gcomhairle leis an mBord Eorpach um an Intleacht Shaorga (an “Bord”), agus tráth nach déanaí ná an 2 Feabhra 2026, treoirlínte a chur ar fáil lena sonraítear cur chun feidhme praiticiúil an Airteagail seo i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 96 mar aon le liosta cuimsitheach de shamplaí praiticiúla de chásanna úsáide córas intleachta saorga ardriosca vis-à-vis cásanna úsáide córas intleachta saorga neamh-ardriosca.
Airteagal 6 6.
Tugtar de chumhacht don Choimisiún gníomhartha tarmligthe a ghlacadh i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 97 chun leasú a dhéanamh ar mhír 3, an dara fomhír, den Airteagal seo trí choinníollacha nua a chur leo siúd a leagtar síos inti, nó trína modhnú; i gcás ina bhfuil fianaise nithiúil iontaofa ann go bhfuil córais intleachta saorga ann a thagann faoi raon feidhme Iarscríbhinn III agus nach mbaineann riosca suntasach díobhála do shláinte, do shábháilteacht ná do chearta bunúsacha daoine nádúrtha leo.
Airteagal 6 7.
Glacfaidh an Coimisiún gníomhartha tarmligthe i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 97 chun leasú a dhéanamh ar mhír 3, an dara fomhír, den Airteagal seo trí aon cheann de na coinníollacha a leagtar síos inti a scriosadh, i gcás ina bhfuil fianaise nithiúil iontaofa ann go bhfuil gá leis sin chun an leibhéal cosanta do shláinte, do shábháilteacht agus do chearta bunúsacha dá bhforáiltear leis an Rialachán seo a choinneáil ar bun.
Airteagal 6 8.
Ní laghdófar le haon leasú ar na coinníollacha a leagtar síos i mír 3, an dara fomhír, arna nglacadh i gcomhréir le míreanna 6 agus 7 den Airteagal seo an leibhéal foriomlán cosanta do shláinte, do shábháilteacht agus do chearta bunúsacha dá bhforáiltear leis an Rialachán seo agus áiritheofar leis comhsheasmhacht leis na gníomhartha tarmligthe arna nglacadh de bhun Airteagal 7(1), agus cuirfear forbairtí margaidh agus teicneolaíocha san áireamh.

1.1 Tagairtí

1.2 Ceanglais aitheanta

1.3 Caighdeáin ghaolmhara

2. Ceanglais aitheanta

Ceanglais

3. Caighdeáin ghaolmhara

Caighdeáin
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.