EU AI Act Article 86 — Right to explanation of individual decision-making
A person subject to a decision taken on the basis of an Annex III high-risk AI system's output with legal or similarly significant adverse effect has the right to obtain clear and meaningful explanations of the system's role and the main elements of the decision
Where this comes from
Provision: Article 86 — Right to explanation of individual decision-making
Instrument: EU Artificial Intelligence Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689)
Citation: Article 86, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689
Text version: Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act), OJ L, 12.7.2024
Checked against the source: 2 September 2026
Who it applies to
High-risk AI deployer in scope — all of these:
- Service deploys AI systems in a professional capacity
- AI Act role is Deployer or we provide some AI systems and deploy others
- High-risk AI outputs feed decisions about individuals with legal or similarly significant effects
Annex III high-risk area, excluding point 2 (Art. 6(2)) — any one of these:
- Annex III high-risk areas includes Biometrics
- Annex III high-risk areas includes Education and vocational training
- Annex III high-risk areas includes Employment and worker management
- Annex III high-risk areas includes Essential public services
- Annex III high-risk areas includes Creditworthiness
- Annex III high-risk areas includes Insurance
- Annex III high-risk areas includes Law enforcement
- Annex III high-risk areas includes Migration, asylum and border control
- Annex III high-risk areas includes Administration of justice and democratic processes
…unless:
- AI Act scope exclusion is used exclusively for military, defence or national-security purposes or developed and used solely for scientific research and development
- Art. 2(3): the Regulation 'does not apply to AI systems where and in so far as they are placed on the market, put into service, or used with or without modification exclusively for military, defence or national security purposes'. (AI Act Art. 2(3))
- Art. 2(6): the Regulation 'does not apply to AI systems or AI models, including their output, specifically developed and put into service for the sole purpose of scientific research and development'. (AI Act Art. 2(6))
- Art. 6(3): 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 — which applies where the system (a) performs... (AI Act Art. 6(3))
- Art. 86(1) excludes Annex III point 2 (critical infrastructure) systems from the right. Art. 86(2): 'Paragraph 1 shall not apply to the use of AI systems for which exceptions from, or restrictions to, the obligation under that paragraph follow from Union... (AI Act Art. 86(1) and Art. 86(2))
- Art. 86(3): 'This Article shall apply only to the extent that the right referred to in paragraph 1 is not otherwise provided for under Union law.' Where GDPR Art. 22(3) / Art. 15(1)(h) already give the affected person the explanation, Art. 86 adds nothing. (AI Act Art. 86(3))
Scope in the source's own terms
- Art. 2(1): the AI system is placed on the market or put into service in the Union, or the provider/deployer is established in the Union, or the output produced by the system is used in the Union
- Art. 6(2): the AI system falls within an area listed in Annex III and is therefore high-risk, no documented Art. 6(3) derogation applying (and it is ALWAYS high-risk where it performs profiling of natural persons)
- Art. 26(1), read with Art. 3(4): the actor is a 'deployer' — a natural or legal person using an AI system under its authority, other than in the course of a personal non-professional activity
- Art. 86(1): the decision is taken by the deployer on the basis of the output of an Annex III high-risk system (point 2 excepted) and 'produces legal effects or similarly significantly affects that person in a way that they consider to have an adverse impact on their health, safety or fundamental...
What engineering work it implies
- Right to Explanation Endpoint (Art. 86 / GDPR Art. 22)Covers it fully
Request intake plus a templated explanation of the AI system's role and the main elements of the decision, assembled from the decision record rather than written by hand.
Sample acceptance criteria Landfall generates for this obligation:
- An affected person can request an explanation of a decision about them through a tracked route with a response deadline
- The explanation is ASSEMBLED from the decision record, so it cannot diverge from what the system actually did
- It states the system's role honestly — decided, or recommended with a person deciding — derived from the review state rather than a fixed sentence
- It states the main elements the decision turned on, in plain language, using a reviewed factor-name mapping
- It discloses no model weights, coefficients or decision boundaries, and no third party's personal data
Evidence an auditor expects
- Policy documentDocument review
Explanation template for decisions taken on the basis of a high-risk AI system output
A template that gives the affected person clear and meaningful explanations of (i) the ROLE of the AI system in the decision-making procedure and (ii) the MAIN ELEMENTS of the decision taken — written for a lay reader, not a model card. Art. 86(1) is a right of the affected person, so the template must be usable without technical intermediation
- Process recordDocument reviewRetain aligned to the deployer's Art. 26(6) log retention (at least 6 months) so a decision and its explanation can be reconstructed together
Explanation request log with response times and outcomes
Log of requests received, the decision each relates to, the explanation given and the date. Where the request was refused, the Art. 86(2) Union or national law relied on, or the Art. 86(3) other-Union-law right (typically GDPR Art. 22(3)/Art. 15(1)(h)) under which the explanation was in fact provided
Questions people ask
- Does EU AI Act Article 86 — Right to explanation of individual decision-making apply to my service?
- It applies when Service deploys AI systems in a professional capacity; AI Act role is Deployer or we provide some AI systems and deploy others; High-risk AI outputs feed decisions about individuals with legal or similarly significant effects; and at least one of: Annex III high-risk areas includes Biometrics; Annex III high-risk areas includes Education and vocational training; Annex III high-risk areas includes Employment and worker management; Annex III high-risk areas includes Essential public services; Annex III high-risk areas includes Creditworthiness; Annex III high-risk areas includes Insurance; Annex III high-risk areas includes Law enforcement; Annex III high-risk areas includes Migration, asylum and border control; Annex III high-risk areas includes Administration of justice and democratic processes. It does not apply where AI Act scope exclusion is used exclusively for military, defence or national-security purposes or developed and used solely for scientific research and development.
- When does this become enforceable?
- EU AI Act Article 86 — Right to explanation of individual decision-making is enforceable from 2 August 2026. Its current status is: in force.
- What evidence does an auditor expect?
- Explanation template for decisions taken on the basis of a high-risk AI system output; Explanation request log with response times and outcomes.
Find out whether this one lands on you
Landfall's pre-scan answers the applicability question above for your product in minutes, then turns every obligation that applies into traceable engineering tickets with a citation chain your auditors can follow.
Not legal advice. Landfall maps regulatory obligations to engineering work for planning purposes. Its verdicts are not legal advice and create no attorney-client relationship — verify with qualified counsel before relying on them.