EU regulatory register · AI Act
Article 86Right to explanation of individual decision-making
CELEX 32024R1689 · Read on 2026-08-18 · Chapter IX
Short answer
1. Any affected person subject to a decision which is taken by the deployer on the basis of the output from a high-risk AI system listed in Annex III, with the exception of systems listed under point 2 thereof, and which produces legal effects or similarly significantly affects that person in a way that they consider to have an adverse impact on their …
Verbatim from the article. Source: NovaCopilot · https://legal.exploreworldai.com/eu/rattsakter/ai-act-2024-1689/artikel-86 · Short answer as data · Official text
AI Act in short
Some AI uses are banned, high-risk AI requires risk management and human oversight, and deployers must ensure AI literacy.
Source: NovaCopilot
Official text
Read from the EU Publications Office for this CELEX number. The wording stands as published; nothing here is rewritten or summarised.
1. Any affected person subject to a decision which is taken by the deployer on the basis of the output from a high-risk AI system listed in Annex III, with the exception of systems listed under point 2 thereof, and which produces legal effects or similarly significantly affects that person in a way that they consider to have an adverse impact on their health, safety or fundamental rights shall have the right to obtain from the deployer clear and meaningful explanations of the role of the AI system in the decision-making procedure and the main elements of the decision taken.
2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to the use of AI systems for which exceptions from, or restrictions to, the obligation under that paragraph follow from Union or national law in compliance with Union law.
3. This Article shall apply only to the extent that the right referred to in paragraph 1 is not otherwise provided for under Union law.
Follow-up questions
Other articles in this chapter
Knowledge card
- Applies
- deployer: Provide affected persons, on request, with a clear and meaningful explanation of the role of the high-risk AI system in a decision that produces legal or similarly significant effects.
- Risk if ignored
- medium
- What to do
- Provide affected persons, on request, with a clear and meaningful explanation of the role of the high-risk AI system in a decision that produces legal or similarly significant effects.
- Deadline
- Applies from 2 December 2027 for high-risk systems under Article 6(2) and Annex III, and from 2 August 2028 under Article 6(1) and Annex I (Article 113 as amended by Regulation (EU) 2026/1744).
card:eu:article:ai-act--art-86 · sha256 16ca2505f6db · Source: NovaCopilot
Obligations, actions and sanctions
Article 86 · Role: deployer
Provide affected persons, on request, with a clear and meaningful explanation of the role of the high-risk AI system in a decision that produces legal or similarly significant effects.
Deadline: Applies from 2 December 2027 for high-risk systems under Article 6(2) and Annex III, and from 2 August 2028 under Article 6(1) and Annex I (Article 113 as amended by Regulation (EU) 2026/1744).
Decision chain (JSON)
Sanction: Administrative fine: prohibited practices up to EUR 35 million or 7 % of worldwide annual turnover; other obligations up to EUR 15 million or 3 %; incorrect information up to EUR 7.5 million or 1 %. For general-purpose AI models the Commission (AI Office) decides, up to EUR 15 million or 3 %.
Summary of the obligation in the register; the official language versions on EUR-Lex are authoritative. Source: NovaCopilot
Risk, sanction and outcome
Art. 86 · deployer
Risk: high · Sanction: administrative_fine · Authority: Market surveillance authority
Decisions applying the provision: none in the register
Full chain (JSON)
Outcomes are counted from stored judgments that cite the provision verbatim. Source: NovaCopilot
The text is quoted from the official source and is not legal advice. A national court reads the language version that binds in its jurisdiction.
Verifiable trust signals
- Source-linked answers and explicit evidence gaps
- Obligations, controls, risks and consequences
- Stable objects and verifiable checksums
- Rule-based objects, optional source-linked reasoning
- Model card, source status and audit