Chapter IX · Post-market monitoring, information sharing and market surveillance
Article 83 — Formal non-compliance
Official text
Each paragraph records where its wording comes from. Only text reproduced unchanged from the Official Journal is authentic; consolidated text is editorial and has no legal value. Paragraphs, subparagraphs and points each have their own link.
Where the market surveillance authority of a Member State makes one of the following findings, it shall require the relevant provider to put an end to the non-compliance concerned, within a period it may prescribe:
- (a)
the CE marking has been affixed in violation of Article 48;
- (b)
the CE marking has not been affixed;
- (c)
the EU declaration of conformity referred to in Article 47 has not been drawn up;
- (d)
the EU declaration of conformity referred to in Article 47 has not been drawn up correctly;
- (e)
the registration in the EU database referred to in Article 71 has not been carried out;
- (f)
where applicable, no authorised representative has been appointed;
- (g)
technical documentation is not available.
Authentic — as published in the Official Journal
Where the non-compliance referred to in paragraph 1 persists, the market surveillance authority of the Member State concerned shall take appropriate and proportionate measures to restrict or prohibit the high-risk AI system being made available on the market or to ensure that it is recalled or withdrawn from the market without delay.
Authentic — as published in the Official Journal
The formal analysis of Article 83
Article 6 is formalised first. The remaining articles follow.
Article 83 is formalised node by node: each rule as a deontic position with its operator, each exception with its rank, each predicate resolved against the definitions in Article 3.
What members get, per article
- the rule logic: every norm as a formal position, with the defeater chain that decides which exception wins
- the competency questions and their answers, every unanswered one marked as a gap and named
- the ontology: predicates bound to AISV (AI Standardisation Vocabulary) and to the definitions they depend on, exportable as JSON-LD and OWL
- the documentation: the Article 6(4) assessment record generated from a fact set, with its derivation and the version of the law it was decided against
Built for providers claiming the 6(3) derogation, for the counsel who has to defend that claim, and for the auditor who reads it afterwards.
Access is invite-only and opening in stages. Article 6 is formalised first; the remaining articles follow.
No mail client? Write to hello@signatu.com
Already a member? Sign in
Commentary in preparation
The official text above is complete. The editorial layer for this article — duties, the roles bound by them, the AISV concepts that model them, and the European standards written to support them — is in preparation, in the same form as the articles already published.
See the published articles