All news
Regulation August 1, 2026 5 min

Netherlands: who supervises the AI Act, and where they will start. Prohibited practices and AI literacy, not high-risk systems

The AP and the RDI are the national coordinators. The first actions expected in 2026 concern obligations already in force since February 2025, not those deferred to 2027

TL;DR for the DPO

Media attention is all on high-risk systems, whose obligations the Digital Omnibus moved to December 2027 and August 2028. But prohibited practices and the AI literacy obligation have been in force since 2 February 2025 and were not deferred. That is where the Dutch authority says it will begin.

The five stated priorities

  • Overarching system supervision, that is, systems as a whole rather than individual cases.
  • Transparency and explainability of the outputs systems produce.
  • Frameworks and technical standards.
  • Testing for bias and fairness, with explicit attention to discrimination.
  • AI literacy of the staff operating the systems.

The obligation almost nobody has discharged

Art. 4 of the Regulation requires providers and deployers to ensure a sufficient level of AI literacy among staff dealing with the operation and use of the systems. It prescribes no certificate and no number of hours, and for exactly that reason it gets postponed indefinitely: there is no box to tick that makes it look done.

Why it is a good first target for an authority

Checking AI literacy is simple and cheap: ask which AI systems are in use, who uses them, and what training that person received. If the answer is silence, the infringement is established without technical expertise. It is the same mechanism by which a Finnish fine was upheld because a retention period had never been written down: documentary findings are the ones authorities win.

What to do now, with clients

Three questions and one document

1) Which AI tools are actually in use? Include the ones nobody calls AI: writing assistants, meeting transcription, fraud filters, CV screening. 2) Do any of them fall under the prohibited practices of Art. 5? Emotion recognition in the workplace and social scoring are the two most often found without anyone having noticed. 3) Have the people using them been trained, and is there a record? The AI training and literacy register in the generator exists exactly for this: it is the one document that turns 'we discussed it in a meeting' into evidence.

Official source:Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens - EU AI Act

Looking for a workspace for your DPO work?

DPO Workspace is built by a certified DPO. 30-day free trial.

Start free

Related articles

Regulation
nullathe decision on a worker taken by the algorithm alone, from 23 October

A dismissal decided by the algorithm is void: from 23 October in Italy

Published in Official Gazette no. 234 of 8 October 2026 and in force since 23 October, decree no. 179/2026 provides that final decisions on the employment relationship cannot be based solely on automated processing, that the worker may request an understandable explanation, and that decisions taken in breach are void. In parallel, AI systems affecting work organisation enter the risk assessment under Article 28 of decree 81/2008. For a DPO this is the rare case where the consequence is not economic but civil, and it changes how the check is framed.

Oct 08, 2026New 8 min
Regulation
3signals that make notification due

Poland's UODO: not every breach must be notified. Public-register data on one side, PESEL, health and financial data on the other

If an invoicing system leaks only a sole trader's name, business name, tax number and registered address, already public in the business register, risk is normally unlikely. If it also leaks the national ID number, purchase details revealing health, or financial data, notification is due. Either way, the decision goes into the internal register.

Oct 05, 2026New 5 min
Regulation
120days to charge you, not to fine you

The 120 days are not the deadline to fine you: they are the deadline to charge you

Anyone who built an appeal on the authority's delay should re-read the calendar. The Court clarifies three things: the complaint procedure and the sanctioning procedure are autonomous, so overrunning the nine-to-twelve months on the complaint does not extinguish the power to fine; the 120 days are for notifying the charge, not for imposing the fine; and they run from the «definitive finding», which is not the first notice but the moment the authority can assess every element — including the hearing of your side. After the charge, only the five-year limitation period remains.

Sep 20, 2026 7 min