《欧盟人工智能责任指令（提案）》(全文) The Proposal for an Artificial Intelligence Liability Directive

The Proposal for an Artificial Intelligence Liability Directive

(full articles)

《欧盟人工智能责任指令（提案）》(全文)

Article 1 Subject matter and scope

第一条 主体和适用范围

1. This Directive lays down common rules on:(a) the disclosure of evidence on high-risk artificial intelligence (AI) systems to enable a claimant to substantiate a non-contractual fault-based civil law claim for damages;(b) the burden of proof in the case of non-contractual fault-based civil law claims brought before national courts for damages caused by an AI system.

本指令明确如下一般规则：(a) 披露关于高风险人工智能系统的证据，以使请求权人能够证明存在基于非合同过失的民事损害请求权；(b) 针对人工智能系统造成的损害，向各国法院提起的非合同过错民事索赔案件中的举证责任承担。2. This Directive applies to non-contractual fault-based civil law claims for damages, in cases where the damage caused by an AI system occurs after [the end of the transposition period].This Directive does not apply to criminal liability.本指令适用于非合同过错民事索赔，即人工智能系统所造成的损害发生在【转化期结束后】。本指令不适用于追究刑事责任。3. This Directive shall not affect:(a) rules of Union law regulating conditions of liability in the field of transport;(b) any rights which an injured person may have under national rules implementing Directive 85/374/EEC;(c) the exemptions from liability and the due diligence obligations as laid down in [the Digital Services Act] and(d) national rules determining which party has the burden of proof, which degree of certainty is required as regards the standard of proof, or how fault is defined, other than in respect of what is provided for in Articles 3 and 4. 4.Member States may adopt or maintain national rules that are more favourable for claimants to substantiate a non-contractual civil law claim for damages caused by an AI system, provided such rules are compatible with Union law.本指令不影响：(a) 欧盟调整交通运输领域赔偿责任条件的法律规范；(b) 请求权人根据各国按指令85/374/EEC制定的规则可能享有的任何权利；(c)《数字服务法案》中规定的免责和尽职调查义务；以及(d)各国关于确定哪一方当事人负有举证责任、在举证标准方面需要何种程度的确定性或如何界定过错的规则，但本指令第3条和第4.4条另有规定的除外。各成员国在遵守欧盟法律的前提下，可以采纳或延用各自更有利于请求权人就人工智能系统造成的损害提出非合同民事索赔的规则。

Article 2 Definitions

第二条 定义

For the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions shall apply:(1) ‘AI system’ means an AI system as defined in [Article 3 (1) of the AI Act];(2) ‘high-risk AI system’ means an AI system referred to in [Article 6 of the AI Act];(3) ‘provider’ means a provider as defined in [Article 3 (2) of the AI Act];(4) ‘user’ means a user as defined in [Article 3 (4) of the AI Act];(5) ‘claim for damages’ means a non-contractual fault-based civil law claim for compensation of the damage caused by an output of an AI system or the failure of such a system to produce an output where such an output should have been produced;(6) ‘claimant’ means a person bringing a claim for damages that:(a) has been injured by an output of an AI system or by the failure of such a system to produce an output where such an output should have been produced;(b) has succeeded to or has been subrogated to the right of an injured person by virtue of law or contract; or(c) is acting on behalf of one or more injured persons, in accordance with Union or national law.(7) ‘potential claimant’ means a natural or legal person who is considering but has not yet brought a claim for damages;(8) ‘defendant’ means the person against whom a claim for damages is brought;(9) ‘duty of care’ means a required standard of conduct, set by national or Union law, in order to avoid damage to legal interests recognised at national or Union law level, including life, physical integrity, property and the protection of fundamental rights.

仅为本指令之目的，以下术语所指含义如下：(1) “AI系统”是指《人工智能法案》第3条第（1）项中定义的人工智能系统；(2) “高风险人工智能系统”是指《人工智能法案》第6条中界定的人工智能系统；(3) “供应商”是指《人工智能法案》第3条第（2）项定义的供应商；(4) “用户”是指《人工智能法案》第3条第（4）项定义的用户；(5) “损害赔偿请求”是指基于非合同过错的民事法律索赔，要求对人工智能系统的输出或其未能输出（该输出本应产生）所造成的损害进行赔偿；(6) “请求权人”是指提出损害赔偿请求的人，此人：（a） 因人工智能系统的输出或未能产生本应产生的输出而受到损害； （b） 已根据法律或合同承继或代位行使权利受损者的权利；或 （c） 根据欧盟或成员国法律，代表一名或多名权利受损者索赔的主体。(7) “潜在请求权人”是指正在考虑但尚未提出损害索赔请求的自然人或法人；(8) “被告”是指被要求承担损害赔偿责任的人；(9) “注意义务”是指成员国或欧盟法律规定的，避免损害成员国或联盟法律层面认可的生命安全、身体健康、财产和基本权利等受保护法益所必要的行为标准。

Article 3 Disclosure of evidence and rebuttable presumption of non-compliance

第三条 证据披露和违规的可抗辩推定

1. Member States shall ensure that national courts are empowered, either upon the request of a potential claimant who has previously asked a provider, a person subject to the obligations of a provider pursuant to [Article 24 or Article 28(1) of the AI Act] or a user to disclose relevant evidence at its disposal about a specific high-risk AI system that is suspected of having caused damage, but was refused, or a claimant, to order the disclosure of such evidence from those persons. In support of that request, the potential claimant must present facts and evidence sufficient to support the plausibility of a claim for damages.

对已询问供应商、根据《人工智能法案》第24条或第28条第（1）项规定承担供应商义务的主体或用户要求其披露其掌握的、涉及疑似造成损害的特定高风险人工智能系统的相关证据而被拒绝时，各成员国应确保法院有权下令要求上述主体披露此类证据。为支持其索赔请求，潜在请求权人必须提供足以证明其损害赔偿索赔合理性的事实和证据。

2. In the context of a claim for damages, the national court shall only order the disclosure of the evidence by one of the persons listed in paragraph 1, if the claimant has undertaken all proportionate attempts at gathering the relevant evidence from the defendant.

请求损害赔偿时，只有在请求权人已尽一切适当之努力从被告处收集相关证据仍无法获取的情况下 (即穷尽自力救济，译者注)，法院方可根据本条第1款规定要求相关主体披露证据。

3. Member States shall ensure that national courts, upon the request of a claimant, are empowered to order specific measures to preserve the evidence mentioned in paragraph 1.

各成员国应确保本国法院有权根据请求权人的请求，下令采取具体措施保全本条第1款所规定的证据。

4. National courts shall limit the disclosure of evidence to that which is necessary and proportionate to support a potential claim or a claim for damages and the preservation to that which is necessary and proportionate to support such a claim for damages.

各国法院应将证据披露限制在支持潜在索赔或损害赔偿请求所必需的和适当的范围内，并将保全限制在支持此类损害赔偿请求的必要和适当的范围内。

In determining whether an order for the disclosure or preservation of evidence is proportionate, national courts shall consider the legitimate interests of all parties, including third parties concerned, in particular in relation to the protection of trade secrets within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/943 and of confidential information, such as information related to public or national security.

在认定证据披露或保全命令是否适当时，各国法院应考虑所有各方（包括相关第三人）的合法利益，特别是保护与欧盟第2016/943号指令第2条第（1）款所规定的商业秘密和机密信息有关的利益，例如与公共或国家安全相关的信息。

Member States shall ensure that, where the disclosure of a trade secret or alleged trade secret which the court has identified as confidential within the meaning of Article 9(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/943 is ordered, national courts are empowered, upon a duly reasoned request of a party or on their own initiative, to take specific measures necessary to preserve confidentiality when that evidence is used or referred to in legal proceedings.

各成员国应确保，在法院命令（相关主体）披露欧盟第2016/943号指令第9条第（1）款规定为机密的商业秘密或指称的商业秘密时，该法院有权在一方提出合理请求后或自行决定在法律纠纷解决程序中使用或提及该等证据时，采取必要的具体保密措施。

Member States shall also ensure that the person ordered to disclose or to preserve the evidence mentioned in paragraphs 1 or 2 has appropriate procedural remedies in response to such orders.各成员国还应当确保，被要求披露或被采取保全措施保全本条第1款、第2款所规定证据的主体拥有适当的程序救济措施应对法院的类似指令。

5. Where a defendant fails to comply with an order by a national court in a claim for damages to disclose or to preserve evidence at its disposal pursuant to paragraphs 1 or 2, a national court shall presume the defendant’s non-compliance with a relevant duty of care, in particular in the circumstances referred to in Article 4(2) or (3), that the evidence requested was intended to prove for the purposes of the relevant claim for damages.The defendant shall have the right to rebut that presumption.

被告未遵守法院在索赔诉讼中根据本条第1款和第2款作出的指令披露或保全证据，该法院应当推定被告未能尽到注意义务，特别是根据第4条第(2)款 or第 (3)款规定被要求披露或保全证据旨在证明相应损害赔偿请求之目的时.被告应当有权对上述推定提出抗辩。

Article 4 Rebuttable presumption of a causal link in the case of fault

第四条 过错认定中因果关系的可抗辩推定

1. Subject to the requirements laid down in this Article, national courts shall presume, for the purposes of applying liability rules to a claim for damages, the causal link between the fault of the defendant and the output produced by the AI system or the failure of the AI system to produce an output, where all of the following conditions are met:(a) the claimant has demonstrated or the court has presumed pursuant to Article 3(5), the fault of the defendant, or of a person for whose behaviour the defendant is responsible, consisting in the non-compliance with a duty of care laid down in Union or national law directly intended to protect against the damage that occurred;(b) it can be considered reasonably likely, based on the circumstances of the case, that the fault has influenced the output produced by the AI system or the failure of the AI system to produce an output;(c) the claimant has demonstrated that the output produced by the AI system or the failure of the AI system to produce an output gave rise to the damage.

根据本条规定，在下列条件均满足的情况下，法院应推定被告的过错与人工智能系统的输出或应输未输出之间存在因果关系，并据此选择损害赔偿请求所适用的责任原则： (a)请求权人已证明或法院已根据本指令第3条第（5）款推定被告或可归责于被告的主体存在过错，包括违反欧盟或成员国所法律规定的、直接目的在于防止发生损害的注意义务；(b)根据案件事实，可以合理地认为其过错影响了人工智能系统的输出或人工智能系统无法输出；(c)请求权人已证明，人工智能系统的输出或未输出导致损害发生。

2. In the case of a claim for damages against a provider of a high-risk AI system subject to the requirements laid down in chapters 2 and 3 of Title III of [the AI Act] or a person subject to the provider’s obligations pursuant to [Article 24 or Article 28(1) of the AI Act], the condition of paragraph 1 letter (a) shall be met only where the complainant has demonstrated that the provider or, where relevant, the person subject to the provider’s obligations, failed to comply with any of the following requirements laid down in those chapters, taking into account the steps undertaken in and the results of the risk management system pursuant to [Article 9 and Article 16 point (a) of the AI Act]:(a) the AI system is a system which makes use of techniques involving the training of models with data and which was not developed on the basis of training, validation and testing data sets that meet the quality criteria referred to in [Article 10(2) to (4) of the AI Act];(b) the AI system was not designed and developed in a way that meets the transparency requirements laid down in [Article 13 of the AI Act];(c) the AI system was not designed and developed in a way that allows for an effective oversight by natural persons during the period in which the AI system is in use pursuant to [Article 14 of the AI Act];(d) the AI system was not designed and developed so as to achieve, in the light of its intended purpose, an appropriate level of accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity pursuant to [Article 15 and Article 16, point (a), of the AI Act]; or(e) the necessary corrective actions were not immediately taken to bring the AI system in conformity with the obligations laid down in [Title III, Chapter 2 of the AI Act] or to withdraw or recall the system, as appropriate, pursuant to [Article 16, point (g), and Article 21 of the AI Act].

如果是向《人工智能法案》第三篇第2章和第3章所规定高风险人工智能系统的供应商，或《人工智能法案》第24条或第28条第（1）款所规定承担供应商义务的主体提出损害赔偿要求，则只有当请求权人证明供应商或在特定情况下受供应商义务约束的主体未能遵守上述规定的以下任何要求，考虑《人工智能法案》第9条和第16条第（a）款规定的风险管理系统的步骤和结果： (a)人工智能系统是一种利用数据模型训练相关技术的系统，并非基于对符合《人工智能法案》第10条第 (2)- (4)款所规定质量标准的数据集进行训练、验证和测试而开发的；(b)人工智能系统的设计和开发方式不符合《人工智能法案》第13条规定的透明度要求； (c)人工智能系统的设计和开发方式不允许自然人根据《人工智能法》第14条规定在使用期间对人工智能系统进行有效监督；(d)人工智能系统并未实现其预定的设计和开发目的，未达到《人工智能法案》第15条和第16条第（a）项所规定的适当的准确度、稳定性和网络安全水平；(e)未立即采取必要的补救措施，使人工智能系统符合《人工智能法案》第三篇第2章规定的义务，或根据《人工智慧法案》第16条第（g）项和第21条酌情撤回或召回该系统。

3. In the case of a claim for damages against a user of a high-risk AI system subject to the requirements laid down in chapters 2 and 3 of Title III of [the AI Act], the condition of paragraph 1 letter (a) shall be met where the claimant proves that the user:(a) did not comply with its obligations to use or monitor the AI system in accordance with the accompanying instructions of use or, where appropriate, suspend or interrupt its use pursuant to [Article 29 of the AI Act]; or(b) exposed the AI system to input data under its control which is not relevant in view of the system’s intended purpose pursuant to [Article 29(3) of the Act].

针对符合《人工智能法案》第三篇第2章和第3章规定的高风险人工智能系统提出损害赔偿请求时，如果请求权人举证证明用户满足以下条件之一，则适用本条第1款第 (a)项规定： （a） 未履行其根据附带的使用说明书约定使用或监控人工智能系统，或在适当情况下根据《人工智能法案》第29条暂停或中断其使用的义务；或 （b）将其控制下的人工智能系统用于输入与该系统按《人工智能法案》第29条第（3）款规定的预期用途无关的数据。(使用不当，译者注)

4. In the case of a claim for damages concerning a high-risk AI system, a national court shall not apply the presumption laid down in paragraph 1 where the defendant demonstrates that sufficient evidence and expertise is reasonably accessible for the claimant to prove the causal link mentioned in paragraph 1.

在针对高风险人工智能系统的损害赔偿请求中，如果被告证明请求权人能够合理地获得充足的证据和专业知识来证明本条第1款所述的因果关系，则法院不应适用本条第1款所规定的推定。

5. In the case of a claim for damages concerning an AI system that is not a high-risk AI system, the presumption laid down in paragraph 1 shall only apply where the national court considers it excessively difficult for the claimant to prove the causal link mentioned in paragraph 1.

对于涉及非高风险人工智能系统的损害赔偿请求，仅在法院认为原告难以证明第1款所述因果关系时，方可本条第1款所规定的推定。

6. In the case of a claim for damages against a defendant who used the AI system in the course of a personal, non-professional activity, the presumption laid down in paragraph 1 shall apply only where the defendant materially interfered with the conditions of the operation of the AI system or if the defendant was required and able to determine the conditions of operation of the AI system and failed to do so.

针对在个人非专业活动中使用人工智能系统的被告提出损害赔偿请求的案件中，仅当被告严重干扰人工智能系统运行条件，或者被告在被要求并具备决定人工智能系统运行条件但未能采取合理措施时，方可适用本条第1款所规定的推定。

7. The defendant shall have the right to rebut the presumption laid down in paragraph 1.

被告应当有权对本条第1款推定的适用提出抗辩。

Article 5 Evaluation and targeted review

第五条 影响评估和针对性审查

1. By [DATE five years after the end of the transposition period], the Commission shall review the application of this Directive and present a report to the European Parliament, to the Council and to the European Economic and Social Committee, accompanied, where appropriate, by a legislative proposal.

转换期结束之日起五年内，欧盟委员会应当对本指令的适用情况进行审查，并向欧洲议会、欧洲理事会和欧洲经济和社会委员会提交报告，必要时还应呈报立法提案。

2. The report shall examine the effects of Articles 3 and 4 on achieving the objectives pursued by this Directive. In particular, it should evaluate the appropriateness of no-fault liability rules for claims against the operators of certain AI systems, as long as not already covered by other Union liability rules, and the need for insurance coverage, while taking into account the effect and impact on the roll-out and uptake of AI systems, especially for SMEs.

欧盟委员会应当在审查报告中调查本指令第3条和第4条所规定目标实现的影响，特别是在针对特定人工智能系统运营商提出的索赔中适用无过错责任原则尚未被其他欧盟责任规则覆盖的情况下，评估该规则的的适当性和保险的必要性；并考虑其对新型人工智能系统的发布和应用作用和影响，特别是对中小企业。

3. The Commission shall establish a monitoring programme for preparing the report pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2, setting out how and at what intervals the data and other necessary evidence will be collected. The programme shall specify the action to be taken by the Commission and by the Member States in collecting and analysing the data and other evidence. For the purposes of that programme, Member States communicate the relevant data and evidence to the Commission, by [31 December of the second full year following the end of the transposition period] and by the end of each subsequent year.

欧盟委员会应根据本条第1款和第2款规定，为编写审查报告制定一个监测方案，规定如何收集数据和其他必要证据以及收集的时间间隔。该方案应详细说明欧盟委员会和成员国在收集和分析数据及其他证据时应采取的行动。为实现该方案的目的，成员国应在转换期结束之日起第二个完整年度的12月31日之前以及随后每一年结束之前，向欧盟委员会通报相关数据和证据。

Article 6 Amendment to Directive (EU) 2020/1828

第六条 对2020/1828指令的修订

In Annex I to Directive (EU) 2020/182840, the following point (67) is added: "(67) Directive (EU) …/… of the European Parliament and of the Council of … on adapting non contractual civil liability rules to artificial intelligence (AI Liability Directive) (OJ L …, …, p. …)."

在欧盟第（EU）2020/182840号指令的附件I中，增加第（67）项规定如下：“（67）欧洲议会和欧盟理事会关于将非合同民事责任规则适用于人工智能的指令（《人工智能责任指令》）（OJ L…，…，第…页）。”

Article 7 Transposition

第七条 转换

1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by [two years after the entry into force] at the latest. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.When Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.

各成员国最迟应在本指令生效后两年内，根据本指令制定相应的本国法律、法规和行政规定。并应立即将上述规定的文本送达欧盟委员会。 当成员国同意适用上述规定时，应当表明援引本指令，或在正式发布消息时附上此类引用。各成员国应明确如何进行此类援引。

2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.

成员国应当向欧盟委员会传达其本国法中采纳本指令所涵盖领域的主要法律条款文本。

Article 8 Entry into force

第八条 生效

This Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

本指令在《欧洲联盟公报》发布后自第二十日起生效。

Article 9 Addressees

第九条 主送范围

This Directive is addressed to the Member States.Done at Brussels,

本指令主送欧盟各成员国。起草于布鲁塞尔。

For the European Parliament for the Council