AIPolicyTracker
Legal requirement Governance and accountability European Union Partially applicable

Non-EU providers must appoint an EU authorised representative for high-risk AI

Context fileUnder EU AI Act, Article 22

Source-linked Open official source

What does it require?

Before making a high-risk AI system available in the Union, a provider established outside the EU must appoint, by written mandate, an authorised representative established in the Union. The representative verifies that the EU declaration of conformity and technical documentation exist and that conformity assessment was done, keeps the provider's contact details and the documentation available for ten years, supplies information to authorities, cooperates with them, and must end the mandate if the provider acts contrary to the Regulation.

Practical action

Sign a written mandate with an EU-established representative and give them a controlled copy of the technical file and declaration.

Who does it apply to?

Providers established in a third country that place high-risk AI systems on the EU market; the mandated representative carries the listed tasks.

Applies from:

Which controls meet this duty?

Satisfies: the control, operated properly, does the work the duty asks for. Supports: it contributes but the duty needs more. Each control page lists every other duty it serves, so work done once can be counted once.

  • satisfiesContractual termLegal counsel · once per ai system
    Contractual allocation of AI duties across the supply chain

    Serves 8 recorded duties · evidence: AI supplier clause set, AI customer or deployer clause set, Contract clause index against the AI register

    The written mandate allocates the representative's tasks.

  • supportsProcessRegulatory compliance lead · once per ai system
    Conformity assessment, declaration and registration

    Serves 4 recorded duties · evidence: Declaration of conformity or certificate, Registration record in the relevant database, Conformity evidence pack

    Items the representative must verify.

What evidence would a reviewer expect?

Evidence examples
EvidenceTypeNotes
Written mandate of authorised representativedocument
Representative's documentation checklistrecordVerification that the declaration, technical file and conformity assessment are in place.

Framework mappings

Original editorial crosswalks. They cite clause numbers only and reproduce no standard text; confidence reflects how direct the mapping is.

See every European Union duty mapped this way →

Framework mappings
FrameworkReferenceNoteConfidence
ISO/IEC 42001:2023Clause 5.3; Annex A.10.2Allocation of responsibilities to an external party.medium
NIST AI RMF 1.0GOVERN 2.1, GOVERN 6.1Roles and third-party arrangements.low

Cite this record

AIPolicyTracker (2026). “Non-EU providers must appoint an EU authorised representative for high-risk AI (EU AI Act)”. https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/eu-ai-act-art-22-authorised-representative (accessed 24 September 2026). Data licensed CC BY 4.0.

Cite the official text alongside it: Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence, Official Journal of the European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj.

Similar obligations in other instruments

Informational only, not legal advice. Verify every claim against the linked official sources and consult qualified counsel before acting.