A provider established in a third country must, before making its high-risk AI system available on the Union market, appoint by written mandate an authorised representative established in the Union, and must enable that representative to perform the tasks in the mandate. The mandate must empower the representative to verify that the Art.47 EU declaration of conformity and the Art.11 technical documentation have been drawn up and that an appropriate conformity assessment has been carried out; to keep the provider's contact details, a copy of the declaration, the technical documentation and any notified body certificate at the disposal of competent authorities for ten years after the system was placed on the market or put into service; to provide information, documentation and log access on reasoned request; to cooperate with competent authorities on any action relating to the system; and to comply with or verify the Art.49(1) registration. The representative must terminate the mandate, and immediately inform the relevant market surveillance authority and any relevant notified body, if it considers the provider is acting contrary to its obligations.
EU AI Act EUAI-Art.22 is one control. If you already hold one of the frameworks below, a reviewed crosswalk already says how much of EU AI Act your existing evidence covers. Hold ISO/IEC 42001:2023 and 17 of 43 EU AI Act controls already carry evidence.
Each report names every control your existing framework evidences, every one it does not, the reasoning behind each claim, and the claims that were argued against and rejected. 0 were rejected on the ISO/IEC 42001:2023 pair alone.
The graph holds this control, the 0 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.