Recital (5): Types of possible harm

Harm might be material or immaterial, including physical, psychological, societal, or economic harm.

The assigned text refers to artificial intelligence systems as AI systems and discusses their development, placing on the market, putting into service, and use.

What is data subject?

A person who, according to Recital (10), continues to enjoy rights and guarantees under Union law on the protection of personal data.

What is internal market?

The market-integration objective identified in Recital (1), which the Regulation seeks to improve through a uniform legal framework.

The AI Act as a Union Legislative Instrument — The EU Artificial Intelligence Act: A Section-by-Section Deep Dive into Regulation (EU) 2024/1689

The AI Act as a Union Legislative Instrument

Identify the instrument

The text is Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, adopted by the European Parliament and the Council on 13 June 2024 and published on 12 July 2024.

Read the assigned slice

This lesson covers the formal opening and Recitals (1) to (11): the reasons, policy aims, and legal context stated in the text.

Preserve the wording

A recital that says should remains should in your analysis. Do not upgrade it to a mandatory shall or must.

Recital (1): Internal-Market Purpose and Free Movement

The stated purpose

The purpose of this Regulation is to improve the functioning of the internal market by laying down a uniform legal framework.

What the framework covers

Recital (1) specifically names development, placing on the market, putting into service, and use of AI systems in the Union.

Free movement

This Regulation ensures the free movement, cross-border, of AI-based goods and services.

A crucial qualifier

Member States are prevented from imposing restrictions on development, marketing, and use unless explicitly authorised by this Regulation.

Example: Why a Uniform Framework Matters

The scenario

A company wants to offer an AI-supported hospital-appointment tool across several Member States.

The fragmentation risk

Recital (3) says diverging national rules may fragment the internal market and decrease legal certainty for operators.

What not to infer

The text does not say that a particular AI system is automatically approved. It explains why harmonised rules are needed.

Spot the Condition

Mini activity: Read Recital (1) precisely

Complete this statement using the exact condition in Recital (1):

Member States are prevented from imposing restrictions on the development, marketing, and use of AI systems __________.

Then answer:

Does Recital (1) present free movement as disconnected from the internal market?
Does it say Member States can never impose restrictions under any circumstance?
Which exact phrase prevents that overbroad interpretation?

Suggested answer: The missing words are "unless explicitly authorised by this Regulation". The recital connects free movement to the internal-market framework, and it preserves the stated exception.

Recitals (2) to (5): Values, Fragmentation, Benefits, and Risks

Recital (2): Application in line with values

Recital (2) says the Regulation should be applied in accordance with Union values enshrined in the Charter.

Recital (3): The market problem

Diverging national rules may fragment the internal market and decrease legal certainty for operators that develop, import, or use AI systems.

Treaty bases named

Recital (3) refers to Article 114 TFEU and, for specified personal-data rules concerning law enforcement, Article 16 TFEU.

Benefits and harms

Recitals (4) and (5) place AI's possible economic and social benefits alongside material or immaterial harms, including physical, psychological, societal, or economic harm.

Check Your Reading of Recital (3)

Choose the option that most accurately reflects Recital (3).

According to Recital (3), what may diverging national rules on AI lead to?

Fragmentation of the internal market and decreased legal certainty for relevant operators.
Automatic authorisation of all AI systems in every Member State.
The replacement of all Union law on personal-data protection.
A requirement that every AI system be used only by public authorities.

Show Answer

Answer: A) Fragmentation of the internal market and decreased legal certainty for relevant operators.

Recital (3) states that diverging national rules may lead to fragmentation of the internal market and may decrease legal certainty for operators that develop, import, or use AI systems. It does not state the other propositions.

Recitals (6) to (8): Human-Centric and Trustworthy AI

Human-centric AI

As a prerequisite, AI should be a human-centric technology. It should serve as a tool for people, with the ultimate aim of increasing human well-being.

High-risk AI

Recital (7) says common rules for high-risk AI systems should be established to ensure consistent and high protection of health, safety, and fundamental rights.

The European approach

Recital (8) describes harmonised rules that foster AI in the internal market while protecting public interests and fundamental rights.

Innovation and SMEs

Recital (8) presents innovation measures with particular focus on SMEs, including startups, as part of the framework.

Example: A Human-Centric Design Choice

Use the recital as a lens

For a student-support AI system, ask whether AI is serving as a tool for people and aiming to increase human well-being.

Consider possible harm

Recital (5) says harm may depend on application, use, and technological development, and may be physical, psychological, societal, or economic.

Keep the boundary clear

This source slice does not classify the university system as high-risk or specify compliance duties for it.

Recitals (9) to (11): Complementing Existing Union Law

Complementary law

Recital (9) says the AI Act is complementary to existing Union law, including data protection, consumer protection, fundamental rights, employment, worker protection, and product safety.

Rights and remedies

all rights and remedies provided for by such Union law to consumers, and other persons on whom AI systems may have a negative impact, including as regards the compensation of possible damages pursuant to Council Directive 85/374/EEC (10) remain unaffected and fully applicable.

Personal-data protections

Recital (10) says the Regulation does not seek to affect existing Union law governing personal-data processing, including supervisory authorities' tasks and powers.

Intermediary services

Recital (11) says the Regulation should be without prejudice to intermediary-service provider liability provisions in Regulation (EU) 2022/2065.

Key Recital Review

Flip each card and test whether you can connect the concept to the correct recital and wording.

Recital (1): Core purpose: The purpose of this Regulation is to improve the functioning of the internal market by laying down a uniform legal framework.
Recital (1): Cross-border movement: This Regulation ensures the free movement, cross-border, of AI-based goods and services.
Recital (3): Main concern: Diverging national rules may fragment the internal market and decrease legal certainty for operators.
Recital (5): Types of possible harm: Harm might be material or immaterial, including physical, psychological, societal, or economic harm.
Recital (6): Human-centric AI: As a prerequisite, AI should be a human-centric technology. It should serve as a tool for people, with the ultimate aim of increasing human well-being.
Recital (9): Existing rights: Rights and remedies under relevant Union law remain unaffected and fully applicable.
Recital (10): Personal-data law: The Regulation does not seek to affect existing Union law governing the processing of personal data.

Final Check: The AI Act's Legal Context

Select the statement that best reflects Recitals (9) to (11).

Which statement is correct under the assigned text?

The AI Act replaces all existing Union rules on data protection, consumer protection, and product safety.
Existing Union-law rights and remedies for consumers and other negatively affected persons remain unaffected and fully applicable.
Recital (11) establishes a new liability regime for intermediary-service providers.
National law can never limit the use of an AI system.