LegisGate · FRIA · EU AI Act Art. 27
Article 27 requires certain deployers to assess the impact on fundamental rights before putting a high-risk system into use. The AI Office template contemplated by Art. 27(5) is not out. LegisGate tells you whether the article reaches your AI use case and what it asks for now, lists the FRIA as waiting, and prepares the document once the official template exists.
How a FRIA is done in LegisGate
A FRIA is the one written assessment we do not prepare today, and this page says so in the order the product does it.
Article 27 applies to deployers of high-risk systems. So the first question is not how do I write a FRIA. It is whether this AI use case is high-risk at all, and whether you are a deployer the article names. The determination answers both from your intake.
A dated record that Art. 27 was checked and why it does not apply. That is the answer to the question a regulator would otherwise ask.
The workspace lists the FRIA as waiting for the official template, with no document behind it. What Art. 27 asks for sits among the use case’s obligations now, cited to provision, each with an owner, a due date and the proof attached.
In the official format, from the answers you already gave, with the regulatory half written, for your counsel’s review. It is included with the use case; there is nothing to buy when it lands.
Your first five AI use cases are free, with everything included: the laws, the obligations, the written assessments and monitoring. No card. More than five is a subscription.
The honest position
That is an awkward thing to put on a page and the alternative is worse. Any vendor implying otherwise is either mistaken or hoping you will not check.
What Art. 27 actually asks for
A description of the deployer's processes, the period and frequency of use, the categories of people affected, the specific risks of harm to them, human-oversight measures, and what happens if those risks materialise. Those requirements are in the text now, whatever form eventually carries them.
What we will not hand you
A document dressed as the official form. A filled-in look-alike would read as finished, and it is not.
We bring the regulatory intelligence and the intake. You bring the privacy and legal judgment for your use case and organization. The document is built to hold both.
The division of labour, stated onceWho this is for
Most published writing on the AI Act addresses the people building systems. Article 27 lands on the people using them, and it lands earlier in practice than most teams expect.
The obligation reaches bodies governed by public law and private operators providing public services, which catches a wider set of organisations than the phrase suggests.
Including systems used in creditworthiness evaluation and in risk assessment and pricing for life and health insurance.
Even where the obligation does not apply, the determination produces the dated record of consideration that is otherwise missing.
What this is not. LegisGate produces regulatory intelligence and assessment-preparation materials. Nothing we produce is legal advice, a legal opinion, a certification, or a determination of compliance, and no document we deliver satisfies a legal obligation on its own. Sufficiency is determined by your counsel. Whether Art. 27 applies to a particular AI use case is a determination, and whether a completed assessment is sufficient is your counsel's judgement.
Built on the statute, not on a guess
The form can wait for the AI Office. The question of whether Art. 27 applies to an AI use case cannot, and neither can what it asks you to have in place.