EU AI Act Database Registration: What Article 49 Requires and When It Applies

Article 49 of the AI Act requires the provider of a high-risk AI system listed in Annex III to register itself and the system in an EU database before placing it on the market or putting it into service. Providers who conclude that their Annex III system is not high-risk register too, with a shorter entry. So do public authorities that use one.

The database is not open. The date from which registration bites moved in July 2026, and the amending regulation left a drafting gap that has produced two readings of when Article 49 applies. This is the position on 2 October 2026.

Who has to register

Providers of Annex III high-risk systems: Article 49(1)

Annex III covers eight areas: biometrics; critical infrastructure; education and vocational training; employment, workers' management and access to self-employment; access to essential private and public services and benefits; law enforcement; migration, asylum and border control management; and the administration of justice and democratic processes. A system intended for one of the specific use cases listed under those headings is high-risk under Article 6(2), unless Article 6(3) takes it out.

Before placing such a system on the market or putting it into service, the provider "or, where applicable, the authorised representative" registers itself and the system.

Two categories sit outside Article 49(1). Critical infrastructure systems under Annex III point 2 are registered at national level under Article 49(5). And high-risk AI in regulated products under Annex I is not registered under Article 49 at all, because Article 49(1) names Annex III only.

Providers who conclude their system is not high-risk: Article 49(2)

Article 6(3) lets a provider conclude that an Annex III system is not high-risk where it does not pose a significant risk of harm to health, safety or fundamental rights, including by not materially influencing the outcome of decision making. One of four conditions has to be met. The system performs a narrow procedural task. It improves the result of a previously completed human activity. It detects decision-making patterns, or deviations from them, and is not meant to replace or influence the completed human assessment without proper human review. Or it performs a preparatory task to an assessment relevant to an Annex III use case.

A system that profiles natural persons is always high-risk, whichever condition it meets.

Under Article 6(4) the provider documents that assessment before the system is placed on the market, hands the documentation over when a national competent authority asks for it, and registers under Article 49(2).

The Commission's Digital Omnibus proposal would have deleted Article 49(2). That deletion was rejected, so self-exempting providers still register, using Annex VIII Section B. The Omnibus did shorten Section B: points 7 and 9 (a short summary of the grounds for the conclusion, and the Member States where the system is available) are gone. The entry still names the Article 6(3) condition relied on, while the reasoning sits only in the Article 6(4) record, which an authority can request. The exemption does not keep you out of the database. It puts your position on a public register, and the written assessment behind it has to exist before the system ships.

Public authorities that deploy high-risk systems: Article 49(3)

Deployers that are public authorities, or Union institutions, bodies, offices or agencies, or persons acting on their behalf, register before putting into service or using a high-risk system listed in Annex III (point 2 again excepted). They register themselves, select the system in the database and register their use of it.

Article 26(8) adds the rule that matters most to vendors. A public-sector deployer that finds the system it intends to use has not been registered must not use it, and must inform the provider or the distributor. Its own entry, under Annex VIII Section C, asks for the URL of the provider's entry. A public-sector customer cannot complete its registration until yours exists.

Private-sector deployers have no registration duty under Article 49.

Systems under points 1, 6 and 7 of Annex III in the areas of law enforcement, migration, asylum and border control management go into a secure, non-public section of the database (Article 49(4)). Everything else registered under Article 49 is publicly accessible under Article 71(4).

Providers outside the EU: Article 22

A provider established outside the Union must appoint, by written mandate, an authorised representative established in the Union before making a high-risk system available on the Union market. For Annex III systems that duty applies from 2 December 2027. The representative's details go in point 3 of Section A or B, and Article 22(3)(e) gives the representative a task in the registration itself.

Breaches of Article 22 are fined under Article 99(4)(b): up to EUR 15 million or 3% of total worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher, or whichever is lower for SMEs and small mid-caps.

A person who submits an entry for a provider does not thereby become its authorised representative. Annex VIII lists the submitter (point 2) and the representative (point 3) separately, and filing on someone's behalf does not satisfy Article 22.

When registration applies

What Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 changed

The Digital Omnibus on AI became Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 of 8 July 2026, published in the Official Journal on 24 July and in force since 27 July 2026. It replaced point (c) of the third paragraph of Article 113, which had applied Article 6(1) from 2 August 2027. The new point (c) applies Sections 1, 2 and 3 of Chapter III, except Article 6(5), from 2 December 2027 for Annex III systems and from 2 August 2028 for Annex I systems.

Those are fixed dates. The proposal had linked the start of the high-risk rules to the availability of harmonised standards, and that trigger was dropped. The Commission's consolidated text of Article 113 shows the adopted version, but parts of the AI Act Service Desk FAQ still describe the old mechanism.

The drafting gap around Article 49

Article 49 sits in Section 5 of Chapter III, which covers standards, conformity assessment, certificates and registration. The new point (c) names Sections 1 to 3 only. Read literally, Section 5 stayed on the general application date of 2 August 2026.

That reading has little to work with. Article 49(1) applies to high-risk systems listed in Annex III, and Article 6, which makes them high-risk, is deferred. The duties that place registration on an operator are deferred as well: the provider's in Article 16(i), the authorised representative's in Article 22(3)(e) and the public-sector deployer's in Article 26(8). The fines in Article 99(4) attach to those articles, not to Article 49 on its own. And there is no database to register in.

Commentary is divided. At least one reading takes the letter and gives 2 August 2026; a Commission service desk reply reported by Euractiv points to December 2027. We work to 2 December 2027, and would still note the gap in the compliance file.

Systems already on the market: Article 111(2)

As amended, Article 111(2) catches a high-risk system placed on the market before the Chapter III date only if its design changes significantly afterwards, assessed per type and model. For a system under active development, that relief lasts only until the first significant change in design. Providers and deployers of high-risk systems intended to be used by public authorities must comply by 2 August 2030 in any case.

The dates

Where you register: the database under Article 71

Article 71 has the Commission set up and maintain the EU database, in collaboration with the Member States. It is not operational. A reply from the AI Act Service Desk dated 9 July 2026, reported by Euractiv, said: "This database is not yet open and operational". It put the expected launch in the third quarter of 2027 (coverage of the reply). That is a secondary source. The Commission has not published a launch date.

Nobody can register a system today. If someone offers to, ask what exactly they would be filing, and where.

What goes in the entry: Annex VIII

• Most of Section A repeats documents you must have anyway. The instructions for use (Article 13) and the EU declaration of conformity (Article 47) describe the same system and intended purpose, and the entry should not describe it differently.
• Few Annex III providers will list a notified body. Under Article 43(2), points 2 to 8 follow internal control under Annex VI. Biometric systems under point 1 can need one.
• The description of data and operating logic will be public. Write it for a public reader, competitors included.
• The status field outlives the filing. Someone has to own the entry when a system is withdrawn or recalled.

Filing on a provider's behalf

Annex VIII expects that someone other than the provider may do the filing. Point 2 of Sections A and B asks, "where submission of information is carried out by another person on behalf of the provider", for that person's name, address and contact details; point 2 of Section C does the same for deployers. Article 71(5) has the database hold the names and contact details of the natural persons responsible for registering who have the "legal authority to represent the provider" or the deployer.

The Regulation therefore provides for filing by a third party under the provider's authority. It does not settle the mechanics. The Commission has not said how the portal will identify a submitter, how authority to file will be evidenced, or whether one organisation will be able to file for another through its own access. None of that is verified yet.

A sensible plan covers both outcomes: a written mandate with a named natural person who has authority to represent the provider, and a dossier complete enough that your own staff could file it without starting again.

What to do before the portal opens

1. Inventory and classify. For each AI system, record the Annex III point it falls under, if any, and whether you are its provider or deployer.
2. Write the Article 6(4) record now for every system you treat as not high-risk. Name the Article 6(3) condition, explain why the system does not materially influence the outcome of decisions, and address profiling explicitly.
3. Map your releases against 2 December 2027. A system first placed on the market from that date, or a legacy system whose design changes significantly, needs its entry before it ships.
4. Draft the Annex VIII content and reconcile it with the instructions for use and the declaration of conformity. If conformity work is still in progress, the draft shows early where the documents disagree.
5. Outside the EU, choose your authorised representative. Their details go in the entry.
6. Tell public-sector customers when to expect your entry. Their Section C entry needs your URL, and Article 26(8) bars them from using an unregistered system.
7. Name the people: the person with legal authority to represent you, the submitter if different, and whoever owns the entry afterwards.

Behind the entry sit the technical documentation, logging and conformity evidence: that is the AI Act compliance work we run as engineering projects. Article 50 is a separate track, covered in our guide to transparency obligations.

Getting the dossier ready now

For a fixed fee per AI system we check the classification against Annex III and Article 6(3), draft the Article 6(4) record where it applies, and prepare a complete Annex VIII dossier now, then file it under your mandate once the database opens. If the database does not accept filings made on a provider's behalf, we refund the part of the fee that covers the filing and walk you through filing it yourself. Acting as your Article 22 authorised representative is not part of the service. The details are on our registration dossier service page, or you can book a call.