EU AI Act Article 71: The EU Database for High-Risk AI Systems
Article 71 of the EU AI Act builds the EU database for high-risk AI: who registers, the public part, the secure non-public section, and the Article 49 link.
Article 71 builds the filing cabinet. Article 49 is the act of filing in it. People conflate the two constantly, and the distinction matters: Article 71 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 is the enabling statute that creates the EU database for high-risk AI systems, defines its public and secure non-public sections, and names the Commission as controller. The duty to register a system lives in Article 49.
This guide covers what Article 71 establishes, who enters the data, why the public part is a transparency tool, which Annex III categories route to the restricted section, and what to plan against on the timeline. For the full Annex VIII field list and the registration duty itself, follow the dedicated Article 49 guide — this page is about the registry, not the act of filling it.
What Article 71 establishes
Article 71(1) tasks the Commission, in collaboration with the Member States, with setting up and maintaining an EU database. It is the infrastructure statute: it brings the registry into existence and assigns responsibility for running it, but it does not by itself oblige any provider to do anything — that is Article 49's job.
The database holds two kinds of record. First, high-risk AI systems listed in Annex III that are registered under Article 49(1) or 49(2). Second, systems a provider concluded are not high-risk after applying the Article 6(3) exemption, but which must still be registered under Article 49(2) so the claim is on the record. It is therefore not a list of confirmed dangers — it is a register of systems that passed through the high-risk screening, whether or not they ended up high-risk. Article 71 is the registry and its governance; Article 49 is what you must enter into it.
Who enters the data, and Article 49 as the operating duty
Article 71(2) is precise about who keys in the data: the provider or, where applicable, the authorised representative. Article 71 names the data-entry actor; the trigger for entry — the duty to register before placing a system on the market — is Article 49.
Provider vs authorised representative vs deployer entries
Providers established in the EU enter their own data; providers outside the EU act through an authorised representative who keys in the registration on their behalf. And the database is not provider-only: under Article 49(3), public-authority deployers (including Union institutions and bodies, or those acting for them) of certain Annex III high-risk systems register their use of the system. Several entries can therefore sit behind one deployed system.
Why the duty (Art 49) and the database (Art 71) are separate articles
The split is deliberate. It lets the Act assign infrastructure accountability to the Commission (Article 71) while keeping the accuracy of each entry on the registering party (Article 49). Treat this page as the structural map and the Article 49 guide as the field-level manual.
The public part: a transparency tool by design
Article 71(3) sets the design brief for the public part: information in the database must be publicly accessible, user-friendly, navigable, and machine-readable. That last word matters — it lets researchers and civil-society monitors query the register at scale, not just browse one entry at a time.
The purpose is public transparency. Anyone — a prospective customer doing diligence, a regulator, a journalist mapping which high-risk AI is on the EU market — can see what is registered. It turns an otherwise opaque market into something observable.
It is deliberately limited. Article 71(3) confines the public information to what is necessary and proportionate — the database is not a dump of the full technical file. The Article 11 and Annex IV technical documentation stays with the provider and is produced to authorities on request, not published. And personal data appears only to the extent necessary, processed under the GDPR (Regulation (EU) 2016/679) and, where the Commission processes it, under Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, per Article 71(4).
The secure non-public section: law enforcement, migration, and biometrics
Not everything is public. Article 71(6) carves out a secure, non-public section for the most operationally sensitive categories. Registration information for high-risk systems in Annex III point 1 (biometrics), point 6 (law enforcement), and point 7 (migration, asylum, and border control management) is recorded there rather than in the public part. Access is restricted to the Commission and the national market surveillance authorities responsible for those areas. The rationale is operational sensitivity: publishing the details of a policing risk tool, a border document-verification system, or a permitted biometric deployment could undermine its function. For these categories only, transparency yields to security.
Public vs non-public: an Annex III routing table
The routing depends entirely on the Annex III category, not on the company or its size.
| Annex III category | Where it registers | Who can read it |
|---|---|---|
| Point 1 — biometrics (permitted high-risk uses) | Secure non-public section (Art 71(6)) | Commission + relevant market surveillance authorities |
| Point 2 — critical infrastructure | Public part (Art 71(3)) | Anyone |
| Point 3 — education | Public part | Anyone |
| Point 4 — employment | Public part | Anyone |
| Point 5 — essential services | Public part | Anyone |
| Point 6 — law enforcement | Secure non-public section (Art 71(6)) | Commission + relevant market surveillance authorities |
| Point 7 — migration, asylum, border control | Secure non-public section (Art 71(6)) | Commission + relevant market surveillance authorities |
| Point 8 — justice and democratic processes | Public part | Anyone |
Who can see the restricted entries
A note on the prohibitions backdrop. Article 71(6) routes permitted high-risk biometric uses to the secure section — it does not legitimise prohibited ones. Article 5(1)(f) bans emotion recognition in the workplace and education, and Article 5(1)(g) bans biometric categorisation that infers sensitive attributes. A prohibited system is not registrable at all.
Who runs the database: the Commission as controller
Article 71(5) names the Commission as the controller of the EU database. That allocates accountability for the infrastructure to the Commission rather than to the providers filing into it, and the Commission also provides adequate technical and administrative support to the providers and deployers fulfilling their registration obligations.
That division is the point. The Commission owns and runs the registry; the accuracy and completeness of each entry remain the responsibility of the registering provider or authorised representative under Article 49.
The database is one piece of a wider governance architecture, sitting alongside the Article 16 provider obligations and the Article 26 deployer obligations. It makes that architecture observable; it does not replace the underlying duties.
Worked example: a 220-person biometric access vendor
Consider Portunis Biometrics, a 220-employee company that sells a facial-recognition building-access system. One customer is a national police service, which uses it to identify individuals entering secure facilities.
Step 1 — classification. The system performs biometric identification, so it falls under Annex III point 1; in its law-enforcement context it also touches point 6.
Step 2 — registration. Before placing the system on the market, Portunis registers it under Article 49. Because it is an Annex III point 1 / point 6 system, Article 71(6) routes the entry into the secure non-public section.
Step 3 — visibility. The system does not appear in the public database. Only the Commission and the competent market surveillance authority for law enforcement can read the entry.
The contrast. Suppose the same company also sells a workplace time-and-attendance product. That falls under Annex III point 4 (employment), so its registration lands in the public section, visible to anyone. Same vendor, two products, two destinations — routing follows the Annex III category, not the company.
Timeline and what to plan against
Registration obligations attach to the high-risk Annex III regime. Under the entry-into-application schedule in Article 113, the operative statutory date for Annex III high-risk systems under Article 6(2) is 2 August 2026.
The deferral to 2 December 2027 is now adopted. The European Parliament approved the Digital Omnibus on 16 June 2026 and the Council formally adopted it on 29 June 2026, with entry into force on publication in the Official Journal, expected before 2 August 2026 — so plan against 2 December 2027.
The penalty exposure is real. Failing to register, or supplying incorrect or incomplete information, is a breach of operator obligations under Article 99(4): up to €15 million or 3% of total worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher, with Article 99(6) capping the fine at the lower of the two figures for a company meeting the SME definition. And because registration gates lawful market placement, an unregistered system cannot be placed on the market.
The practical takeaway: build the registration entry as part of the conformity workflow, not as a last step before launch. The Annex VIII fields draw on classification and system-description work you should already be doing — so capture the entry early, as a by-product of it.
How Confir helps
Confir's classification engine works through the Article 6 and Annex III logic at intake, so by the time a system reaches registration the category is settled — and with it, whether the entry routes to the public part or the secure non-public section under Article 71(6). The Annex VIII data the database expects is generated from the structured system record you have already built, not gathered separately at the end.
The engine is deterministic and rule-based — no model inference, no hallucination. The same intake answers produce the same Annex III classification and the same routing decision every time, the right behaviour for something you file into a public regulatory register.
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between Article 71 and Article 49?
Article 71 establishes the EU database itself — it tasks the Commission with setting up and maintaining the registry, defines its public and secure non-public sections, and names the Commission as controller. Article 49 is the obligation that operates inside it: it requires providers (and certain public-authority deployers) to register a high-risk Annex III system, entering the specified Annex VIII information before placing it on the market or putting it into service. Put simply, Article 71 is the vessel and Article 49 is the act of filling it.
Who maintains the EU database under Article 71?
The Commission sets up and maintains the database in collaboration with the Member States (Article 71(1)), and is named as its controller under Article 71(5). The Commission also provides technical and administrative support to providers and deployers carrying out their registration duties. Responsibility for the infrastructure sits with the Commission, while accuracy and completeness of each individual entry remain the responsibility of the registering provider or authorised representative under Article 49.
Is the EU database public?
Largely, yes. Article 71(3) requires the information to be publicly accessible, user-friendly, navigable, and machine-readable, making it a deliberate transparency tool. The exception is Article 71(6): registration entries for high-risk systems in the biometrics, law enforcement, and migration/asylum/border-control categories (Annex III points 1, 6, and 7) are kept in a secure non-public section accessible only to the Commission and the relevant national market surveillance authorities.
Which high-risk systems register in the secure non-public section?
Under Article 71(6), high-risk AI systems in Annex III point 1 (biometrics), point 6 (law enforcement), and point 7 (migration, asylum, and border control management) have their registration information recorded in a secure non-public section. Only the Commission and the national market surveillance authorities responsible for those areas can access it. The reasoning is operational sensitivity: publicly listing policing, border, and biometric systems could undermine their function, so transparency yields to security for these three categories alone.
What personal data does the EU database hold?
The database contains personal data only to the extent strictly necessary for registration and oversight (Article 71(4)). Any such processing must comply with the GDPR (Regulation (EU) 2016/679) for providers and deployers, and with Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 where the Commission processes it. In practice the registered information centres on the system, the provider, and the conformity route rather than on personal data, and Article 71(3) further limits entries to what is necessary and proportionate.
When does the EU database obligation start to apply?
Registration is tied to the high-risk Annex III regime, whose operative statutory date under Article 113 is 2 August 2026. The deferral to 2 December 2027 through the Digital Omnibus is now adopted: the European Parliament approved it on 16 June 2026 and the Council formally adopted it on 29 June 2026, with entry into force on publication in the Official Journal, expected before 2 August 2026, so plan against 2 December 2027.
What happens if a provider fails to register or enters incorrect information?
Failure to register a high-risk system, or supplying incorrect or incomplete information to the database, is a breach of operator obligations. It falls within the Article 99(4) fine tier: up to €15 million or 3% of total worldwide annual turnover for the preceding financial year, whichever is higher. For companies meeting the SME definition, Article 99(6) caps the fine at the lower of the two figures rather than the higher. And because registration gates market placement, an unregistered system cannot lawfully be placed on the market.
Related guides
- Article 49 registration duty and the Annex VIII data fields
- EU AI database: what it is and who must register
- Article 16 provider obligations
- Article 26 deployer obligations
- high-risk AI system
Manage your EU AI Act compliance in one place
Confir automates risk classification, technical documentation, and audit trails for any company. No consultants. No 6-month projects. 14-day free trial.
Start free trial →