The EU AI Act and the Rights-based Approach to Technological Governance

As artificial intelligence (AI) technologies continue to advance, effective risk assessment, regulation, and oversight are necessary to ensure that AI development and deployment align with ethical principles while preserving innovation and economic competitiveness. The adoption of the EU AI Act marks an important step in this direction, establishing a harmonised legal framework that includes detailed provisions on AI governance, as well as the creation of the European AI Office. This paper revisits the question of whether a more robust supranational agency dedicated to AI is still warranted and explores how such a body could enhance policy coherence, improve risk assessment capacities, and foster international cooperation. It also argues that a strengthened EU-level agency would also serve the Union's strategic aim of securing digital and technological sovereignty.

The EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689) imposes technical obligations on high-risk AI providers, yet Articles 8-15 were drafted for predictive AI and leave seven technical gaps when applied to generative systems, spanning non-deterministic data governance, training-data provenance, continuous conformity, human oversight, open-ended robustness, emergent risk, and generative fairness. We deliver Governance-as-Code (GaC), a framework of 43 machine-checkable acceptance criteria across six compliance modules that run in a CI/CD pipeline and emit Article-indexed audit evidence, and we show the actual Rego policy code rather than merely describing it. Our central commitment is that the Act's open-textured standards ("appropriate levels," "possible biases") become declared, auditable numbers: robustness thresholds are derived from the provider's documented baseline and a state-of-the-art floor, and framing bias is collapsed into eight measurable proxies tested by counterfactual demographic probing. We also correct who owes what, since under Article 25 and Chapter V a downstream deployer relies on the upstream provider's Article 53 training-data summary and documents only the layers it controls, so GaC verifies that summary rather than demanding per-sample documentation the deployer never had. We validate on two enterprise deployments, a high-risk advisory chatbot and a limited-risk content generator, benchmarking against a manual expert audit rather than documentation artifacts that were never designed to enforce compliance. GaC reproduces all of the manual audit's findings, including three penalty-triggering violations, while cutting audit labor by roughly 75%.

AI agents - i.e. AI systems that autonomously plan, invoke external tools, and execute multi-step action chains with reduced human involvement - are being deployed at scale across enterprise functions ranging from customer service and recruitment to clinical decision support and critical infrastructure management. The EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689) regulates these systems through a risk-based framework, but it does not operate in isolation: providers face simultaneous obligations under the GDPR, the Cyber Resilience Act, the Digital Services Act, the Data Act, the Data Governance Act, sector-specific legislation, the NIS2 Directive, and the revised Product Liability Directive. This paper provides the first systematic regulatory mapping for AI agent providers integrating (a) draft harmonised standards under Standardisation Request M/613 to CEN/CENELEC JTC 21 as of January 2026, (b) the GPAI Code of Practice published in July 2025, (c) the CRA harmonised standards programme under Mandate M/606 accepted in April 2025, and (d) the Digital Omnibus proposals of November 2025. We present a practical taxonomy of nine agent deployment categories mapping concrete actions to regulatory triggers, identify agent-specific compliance challenges in cybersecurity, human oversight, transparency across multi-party action chains, and runtime behavioral drift. We propose a twelve-step compliance architecture and a regulatory trigger mapping connecting agent actions to applicable legislation. We conclude that high-risk agentic systems with untraceable behavioral drift cannot currently satisfy the AI Act's essential requirements, and that the provider's foundational compliance task is an exhaustive inventory of the agent's external actions, data flows, connected systems, and affected persons.