Article 112 — Transitional provisions (EU AI Act)

Article 112 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 — Transitional provisions. Official text, practical interpretation, key obligations and compliance implications.

Official Text Summary

Article 112 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 establishes transitional provisions designed to ease the shift from the pre-Regulation legal landscape to the new EU AI Act framework. The article applies primarily to high-risk AI systems — those listed in Annex I (AI systems regulated by Union harmonisation legislation) and Annex III (standalone high-risk AI systems) — that were already placed on the market or put into service before the dates on which the relevant obligations become fully applicable.

Under Article 112, such systems are not immediately required to achieve full compliance provided they are not subject to a substantial modification as defined in Article 3(23) of the Regulation. Where no substantial modification occurs, providers and deployers may continue operating these systems under a grace period that runs until 2 August 2027 for most high-risk categories, and until 2 August 2030 for certain AI systems regulated under Annex I that are also subject to existing Union harmonisation legislation.

For AI systems that are components of larger infrastructure — particularly in regulated sectors such as medical devices, machinery, or civil aviation — Article 112 coordinates with existing product safety regimes, allowing continued reliance on prior conformity assessments where they remain valid. The transitional provisions do not apply to AI systems prohibited under Article 5, which became enforceable in February 2025 and admit no delay. Providers wishing to invoke transitional provisions bear the burden of demonstrating that their system has not been substantially modified and was legitimately on the market prior to the relevant threshold date.

What This Means in Practice

For businesses that deployed AI systems before the EU AI Act's phased obligations took effect, Article 112 provides a structured compliance runway rather than an immediate retrofit requirement. In practice, this means that a company running a high-risk AI-based recruitment screening tool deployed in 2023 does not need to achieve full Regulation compliance — including conformity assessments, technical documentation, and registration in the EU database — until 2 August 2027, as long as the tool has not been substantially modified.

The concept of "substantial modification" is therefore pivotal. If a provider updates the underlying model, changes the purpose of the system, or alters its outputs in a way that affects safety or fundamental rights, that update likely triggers immediate compliance obligations rather than the transitional grace period. Providers should document all updates and changes to existing AI systems carefully, ideally with a change-log and an internal legal assessment of whether each update constitutes a substantial modification.

Deployers using third-party AI tools also need to be alert: if their provider issues a major product update, the deployer must reassess whether the transitional protection still applies. Organisations should not assume that legacy deployment status is indefinitely preserved.

Practically, the transitional period should be used proactively. Rather than waiting until 2027, compliance teams should treat this window as a runway to build conformity assessment processes, appoint a responsible person for AI governance where required, map high-risk systems against Annex III categories, and begin technical documentation. Early movers will be better positioned for the 2027 deadline and less exposed to regulatory scrutiny if an incident occurs during the transitional period.

Key Obligations

• Identify legacy systems: Providers must determine which AI systems were placed on the market or put into service before the relevant application date and therefore qualify for transitional treatment under Article 112.
• Monitor for substantial modifications: Any update, upgrade, or repurposing of a transitional AI system must be assessed against the definition in Article 3(23); a substantial modification ends the transitional period immediately for that system.
• Maintain documentation of prior market placement: To invoke transitional provisions, providers should retain evidence — such as purchase records, deployment contracts, or version histories — demonstrating that the system was on the market before the relevant threshold date.
• Prepare for full compliance by 2 August 2027: For most high-risk AI systems under Annex III, the transitional period expires on this date; full conformity with Title III (high-risk AI obligations) is required from that point.
• Respect the 2030 deadline for Annex I regulated products: AI systems embedded in products governed by existing Union harmonisation legislation listed in Annex I benefit from an extended transitional period until 2 August 2030, provided no substantial modification occurs and existing conformity assessments remain valid.
• No transitional relief for prohibited AI practices: Article 5 prohibited practices — including certain biometric categorisation systems and real-time remote biometric identification — applied from 2 February 2025 and are not covered by Article 112 transitional arrangements under any circumstances.

Relationship to Other Articles

Article 112 functions as the operational counterpart to Article 113 (Entry into force and application), which sets the master phased timeline for the entire Regulation. Together, these two final provisions form the temporal architecture of the EU AI Act. Article 112 must also be read alongside Article 3(23), which defines "substantial modification" — the concept that determines whether a legacy system loses its transitional status.

The article connects directly to the obligations in Title III, Chapter 2 (Articles 8–15), which establish the full suite of requirements for high-risk AI systems, including risk management, data governance, technical documentation, transparency, human oversight, accuracy, and robustness. Providers using Article 112 relief are effectively deferring these obligations, not eliminating them.

Article 112 also interacts with Article 47 (EU declaration of conformity) and Article 49 (CE marking), since transitional systems may retain prior conformity marks during the grace period. For systems in regulated sectors, it must be read alongside the relevant Union harmonisation legislation listed in Annex I, including the Medical Devices Regulation and the Machinery Regulation.

Compliance Timeline

2 August 2024 — Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 entered into force. From this date, the transitional provisions of Article 112 became legally operative, establishing which systems qualify as pre-existing.

2 February 2025 — Prohibited AI practices under Article 5 became enforceable. Article 112 provides no relief for systems falling into these categories.

2 August 2025 — GPAI model obligations (Title VII) became applicable. Transitional provisions under Article 112 do not extend to GPAI-specific requirements.

2 August 2026 — The general application date for most of the Regulation, including high-risk AI obligations under Title III. Systems already on the market before this date may invoke Article 112 transitional status.

2 August 2027 — Transitional period expires for the majority of high-risk AI systems listed in Annex III. Full compliance with all applicable Title III requirements is mandatory from this date.

2 August 2030 — Extended transitional deadline for AI systems that are safety components of, or themselves constitute, products governed by Annex I Union harmonisation legislation (e.g., medical devices, machinery), provided no substantial modification has occurred and existing conformity assessments remain valid.