Article 105 — Amendments to Directive 2014/90/EU (EU AI Act)

Article 105 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 — Amendments to Directive 2014/90/EU. Official text, practical interpretation, key obligations and compliance implications.

Official Text Summary

Article 105 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (the EU AI Act) amends Directive 2014/90/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on marine equipment. Specifically, it inserts a new paragraph 5 into Article 8 of that Directive. Article 8 of Directive 2014/90/EU governs the Commission's mandate to pursue the development of international standards for marine equipment through the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and standardisation bodies, and empowers the Commission to adopt harmonised technical specifications and testing standards by delegated act where no adequate international standard exists (paragraph 2) or where a serious weakness in an existing standard must be remedied (paragraph 3).

The newly inserted paragraph 5 reads, in substance: for AI systems which are safety components within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, when carrying out its activities pursuant to Article 8(1) and when adopting technical specifications and testing standards in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3, the Commission shall take into account the requirements set out in Chapter III, Section 2, of the AI Act.

Chapter III, Section 2 of the AI Act sets out the full body of obligations applicable to high-risk AI systems, including: risk management systems, data governance, technical documentation, record-keeping, transparency toward deployers, human oversight measures, accuracy, robustness, and cybersecurity. By requiring the Commission to take these requirements into account when drafting marine equipment standards, Article 105 creates a mandatory integration point between maritime safety regulation and EU AI governance.

What This Means in Practice

Article 105 operates at the level of regulatory standard-setting rather than directly imposing new duties on private operators. Its practical effect unfolds in two stages.

For the European Commission: Whenever the Commission prepares a delegated act under Article 8 of Directive 2014/90/EU — whether to fill a gap in IMO standards or to remedy a known weakness — it must now audit the draft specifications against Chapter III, Section 2 of the AI Act if the equipment in scope includes, or may include, an AI system functioning as a safety component. This obligation applies from the date the AI Act entered into force.

For manufacturers of AI-enabled marine equipment: The wheel mark certification pathway will progressively reflect AI Act requirements. Navigation aids, electronic chart display systems (ECDIS) with AI-driven route optimisation, autonomous collision avoidance tools, automated stability monitoring, and AI-powered distress signal detection systems are all plausible candidates. Manufacturers should expect future implementing measures to require: a documented risk management system covering the AI component's lifecycle, technical documentation demonstrating conformity with Chapter III, Section 2, logs enabling post-incident traceability, and design features ensuring human override capability.

For notified bodies and classification societies (DNV, Bureau Veritas, Lloyd's Register, and others that assess marine equipment): their audit protocols for wheel mark certification will need to incorporate AI Act criteria as the Commission updates the relevant technical specifications. Early engagement with these bodies to understand evolving conformity assessment expectations is advisable for manufacturers currently developing AI-based marine safety components.

Key Obligations

• The European Commission must consider Chapter III, Section 2 AI Act requirements when conducting standard-monitoring activities under Article 8(1) of Directive 2014/90/EU for AI-based safety components.
• When adopting harmonised technical specifications for marine equipment under Article 8(2) (gap-filling in the absence of international standards), the Commission must integrate AI high-risk system obligations where the equipment incorporates AI safety components.
• When adopting corrective harmonised standards under Article 8(3) (remedying weaknesses in existing standards), the Commission must likewise apply Chapter III, Section 2 criteria to any AI component dimension of the specification.
• Manufacturers of AI systems functioning as safety components within the marine equipment sector must anticipate that applicable technical specifications will embed AI Act high-risk obligations covering risk management, data governance, technical documentation, transparency, human oversight, accuracy, robustness, and cybersecurity.
• Notified bodies and classification societies involved in conformity assessment under Directive 2014/90/EU must update audit frameworks as Commission delegated acts begin reflecting Chapter III, Section 2 requirements.
• Economic operators (manufacturers, importers, distributors) placing wheel-mark products on the market must monitor Commission delegated acts adopted under Article 8 of Directive 2014/90/EU for updated AI-related specifications as they enter into force.

Relationship to Other Articles

Article 105 belongs to Title XIII (Final Provisions) alongside Articles 101 to 113, which collectively align pre-existing EU sectoral legislation with the AI Act's framework. It should be read in conjunction with Article 6 and Annex I of the AI Act, which establish the classification of AI systems as high-risk when they serve as safety components of products governed by Union harmonisation legislation — a category that expressly includes Directive 2014/90/EU. Chapter III, Section 2 (Articles 9 to 25) contains the substantive high-risk obligations that Article 105 incorporates by reference into marine equipment standard-setting. Article 111 governs the AI Act's transitional arrangements for products already subject to other harmonisation legislation. Comparable sectoral amendment articles include Article 103 (amending Directive (EU) 2016/797 on rail interoperability) and Article 104 (amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 on aviation safety), making Articles 103–106 a coherent cluster addressing AI in safety-critical transport and infrastructure sectors.

Compliance Timeline

2 August 2024 — Entry into force. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 was published in the Official Journal on 12 July 2024 and entered into force twenty days later. Article 105 took legal effect on this date, meaning the Commission's obligation to consider Chapter III, Section 2 requirements in its marine equipment standard-setting activities was immediately operative.

February 2025. Provisions on prohibited AI practices (Title II) became applicable. Not directly relevant to Article 105, but relevant for any maritime operator using AI systems that could fall under prohibited categories.

August 2025. GPAI model obligations (Title VIII) became applicable. Relevant for manufacturers integrating large foundation models into marine equipment components.

2 August 2026 — General application. The full AI Act applies, including all Chapter III, Section 2 high-risk obligations. By this date, the Commission should be routinely applying these requirements in any new delegated acts under Directive 2014/90/EU, and manufacturers should have compliance programmes covering AI-enabled marine equipment.

December 2026 / August 2027. Phased deadlines for high-risk AI systems listed in Annex I (Union harmonisation legislation products) and Annex III respectively. Marine equipment manufacturers relying on the Annex I pathway should use the December 2026 horizon as their target for full documentation and conformity assessment readiness.