+Článok 6 Pravidlá klasifikácie vysokorizikových systémov AI
---+Článok 6 1.
---+Článok 6 1a.
---+Článok 6 1b.
---+Článok 6 1c.
---+Článok 6 2.
---+Článok 6 3.
---+Článok 6 4.
---+Článok 6 5.
---+Článok 6 6.
---+Článok 6 7.
---+Článok 6 8.

Článok 6 Pravidlá klasifikácie vysokorizikových systémov AI

-

1. Prehľad

,
Článok 6 1.

Bez ohľadu na to, či sa systém AI uvádza na trh alebo uvádza do prevádzky nezávisle od výrobkov uvedených v písmenách a) a b), považuje sa daný systém AI za vysokorizikový, ak sú splnené obe tieto podmienky:

a) 

systém AI je určený na používanie ako bezpečnostný komponent výrobku, na ktorý sa vzťahujú harmonizačné právne predpisy Únie uvedené v prílohe I, alebo je systém AI sám osebe takýmto výrobkom;

b) 

výrobok, ktorého bezpečnostným komponentom podľa písmena a) je systém AI, alebo samotný systém AI ako výrobok sa musí podrobiť posúdeniu zhody treťou stranou s cieľom uviesť daný výrobok na trh alebo do prevádzky podľa harmonizačných právnych predpisov Únie uvedených v prílohe I.
Článok 6 1a.
Na účely tohto nariadenia vrátane odseku 1 tohto článku sa systémy AI, ktoré sa používajú výlučne na aspekty pomoci používateľom, optimalizácie výkonu, efektívnosti služieb, automatizácie alebo pohodlia či kontroly kvality, ktoré nesúvisia s bezpečnosťou, nepovažujú za bezpečnostné komponenty.
Článok 6 1b.
Bez ohľadu na odsek 1a sa systémy AI, ktorých zlyhanie alebo porucha by ohrozili zdravie a bezpečnosť, považujú za bezpečnostné komponenty.
Článok 6 1c.
Výrobok, ktorý sa musí podrobiť posudzovaniu zhody treťou stranou výlučne z dôvodu iných rizík, než sú riziká pre zdravie a bezpečnosť, najmä rizík súvisiacich s distribúciou rádiového spektra alebo elektromagnetickej interferencie, ktoré nemajú vplyv na zdravie a bezpečnosť, sa nepovažuje za výrobok spĺňajúci podmienku uvedenú v odseku 1 písm. b).
Článok 6 2.
Okrem vysokorizikových systémov AI uvedených v odseku 1 sa za vysokorizikové považujú systémy AI uvedené v prílohe III.
Článok 6 3.
Odchylne od odseku 2 sa systém AI uvedený v prílohe III nepovažuje za vysokorizikový, ak nepredstavuje významné riziko ujmy na zdraví, bezpečnosti alebo základných právach fyzických osôb, vrátane toho, že podstatným spôsobom neovplyvňuje výsledok rozhodovania.

Prvý pododsek sa uplatňuje, ak je splnená ktorákoľvek z týchto podmienok:

a) 

systém AI je určený na vykonávanie úzko vymedzenej procedurálnej úlohy;

b) 

systém AI je určený na zlepšenie výsledku predtým dokončenej ľudskej činnosti;

c) 

systém AI je určený na zisťovanie vzorcov rozhodovania alebo odchýlok od vzorcov predchádzajúceho rozhodovania a nie je určený na to, aby bez riadneho ľudského preskúmania nahradil alebo ovplyvnil predtým dokončené ľudské posúdenie, alebo

d) 

systém AI je určený na vykonávanie prípravnej úlohy pri posudzovaní relevantnom na účely prípadov použitia uvedených v prílohe III.

Bez ohľadu na prvý pododsek sa systém AI uvedený v prílohe III vždy považuje za vysokorizikový, ak sa ním vykonáva profilovanie fyzických osôb.
Článok 6 4.
Poskytovateľ, ktorý sa domnieva, že systém AI uvedený v prílohe III nie je vysokorizikový, zdokumentuje svoje posúdenie pred uvedením tohto systému na trh alebo do prevádzky. Takýto poskytovateľ podlieha registračnej povinnosti stanovenej v článku 49 ods. 2. Na žiadosť vnútroštátnych príslušných orgánov poskytovateľ poskytne dokumentáciu o posúdení.
Článok 6 5.
Komisia po konzultácii s Európskou radou pre AI (ďalej len „rada pre AI“) a najneskôr do 2. februára 2026 poskytne usmernenia, v ktorých spresní praktické vykonávanie tohto článku v súlade s článkom 96 spolu s komplexným zoznamom praktických príkladov prípadov použitia systémov AI, ktoré sú vysokorizikové, a prípadov použitia systémov AI, ktoré nie sú vysokorizikové.
Článok 6 6.
Komisia je splnomocnená prijímať delegované akty v súlade s článkom 97 s cieľom zmeniť odsek 3 druhý pododsek tohto článku doplnením nových podmienok k podmienkam v ňom stanoveným alebo ich upravením, ak existujú konkrétne a spoľahlivé dôkazy o existencii systémov AI, ktoré patria do rozsahu pôsobnosti prílohy III, ale nepredstavujú významné riziko ujmy na zdraví, bezpečnosti alebo základných právach fyzických osôb.
Článok 6 7.
Komisia prijme delegované akty v súlade s článkom 97 s cieľom zmeniť odsek 3 druhý pododsek tohto článku vypustením ktorejkoľvek z podmienok v ňom stanovených, ak existujú konkrétne a spoľahlivé dôkazy o tom, že je to potrebné na zachovanie úrovne ochrany zdravia, bezpečnosti a základných práv stanovenej týmto nariadením.
Článok 6 8.
Žiadna zmena podmienok stanovených v odseku 3 druhom pododseku prijatá v súlade s odsekmi 6 a 7 tohto článku nesmie znížiť celkovú úroveň ochrany zdravia, bezpečnosti a základných práv stanovenú týmto nariadením a musí zabezpečiť súlad s delegovanými aktmi prijatými podľa článku 7 ods. 1 a zohľadniť vývoj na trhu a technologický vývoj.

1.1 Odkazy

1.2 Identifikované požiadavky

1.3 Súvisiace štandardy

2. Identifikované požiadavky

Požiadavky

3. Súvisiace štandardy

Štandardy
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.