Choose an institution to see its records and dossier, or choose a topic.
Through year 2027 · all records, including scheduled dates 2026 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1994 1993 1992 1991 1989 1986 1985 1984 1983 1979 1966 1965 1961 1960 1955 1952 1950 1872 1863 Show Organisations and infrastructure All types Organisation Person Document Concept Infrastructure Public body Country Reset filters
101 people, organisations and other records · 133 relationships · 34 claims about a valueEverything recorded up to the chosen year, whether or not still in effect · Undated records included
Claim and evidence Close ×
The Opinion concludes that the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice adequately covers the obligations in Articles 53 and 55 of the AI Act and meets the aims of Article 56. Copy claim link
Copy claim reference
Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editor Stated in source Supported
Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source
Provision Who decides · provision ID opinion-para-57 Subject version Opinion of 1 August 2025 · Published 2025-08-01 · Effective date not established Date 2025-08-01 · signature Scope and limits The Commission's assessment of the Code, not of any signatory. Adequacy of the Code is not compliance by any provider. The dataset already quotes this paragraph as evidence for the Code's publication record; this record states the conclusion itself.
The evidence 02 primary source Supports the claim
Commission Opinion C(2025) 5361 on the assessment of the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice ↗ European Commission · 2025-08-01
Archived copy, captured 2025-08-13: Commission Opinion C(2025) 5361 on the assessment of the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice ↗
Copy source reference
Cite the original source Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.
Copy APA
Download BibTeX Download RIS Download CSL-JSON
Paraphrase The Commission concludes that the Code adequately covers the obligations in Articles 53 and 55 of the AI Act and meets the aims in Article 56.
Location in source Section 5, paragraph (57) (p. 12)
How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher
Machine-checked · 2026-10-28
Source details and check notes Authors European Commission Version PDF inspected 2026-10-04, byte-identical (SHA-1) to the Internet Archive capture of 2025-08-13. Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-04 Language English (en) Archive copy Open archived copy, captured 2025-08-13: Commission Opinion C(2025) 5361 on the assessment of the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice ↗ . Captured 12 days after the recorded publication date. An archive copy shows only what the archive retrieved on 2025-08-13. It does not prove what the page said earlier, and it can differ from the copy checked on 2026-10-04.Attribution European Commission, Opinion C(2025) 5361 on the assessment of the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice (1 August 2025). Reuse European Union; quoted briefly under the editorial policy. Selekoa practice: metadata, attributed paraphrases and short attributed quotations under the editorial policy (at most 50 words each; at most 400 quoted words per document across the dataset, and about 10% of a document under about 2,000 words). Documents are linked externally, not redistributed. Publisher terms that forbid quotation override this practice. Check notes Candidate pack passage, frameworks to law (research/frameworks-to-law). The paraphrase is Selekoa’s, written from the text retrieved on 2026-10-27 and read directly from ec.europa.eu; it is not a quotation and was not machine-matched. The paragraph’s wording is also quoted in a further item of this record. No human editorial review. primary source Supports the claim
Commission Opinion C(2025) 5361 on the assessment of the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice ↗ European Commission · 2025-08-01
Archived copy, captured 2025-08-13: Commission Opinion C(2025) 5361 on the assessment of the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice ↗
Copy source reference
Cite the original source Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.
Copy APA
Download BibTeX Download RIS Download CSL-JSON
Source excerpt “the Commission concludes that the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice adequately covers the obligations provided for in Articles 53 and 55 of the AI Act” Location in source Section 5 “Conclusion”, paragraph (57)
How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher
Machine-checked · 2026-10-28
Source details and check notes Authors European Commission Version PDF inspected 2026-10-04, byte-identical (SHA-1) to the Internet Archive capture of 2025-08-13. Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-04 Language English (en) Archive copy Open archived copy, captured 2025-08-13: Commission Opinion C(2025) 5361 on the assessment of the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice ↗ . Captured 12 days after the recorded publication date. An archive copy shows only what the archive retrieved on 2025-08-13. It does not prove what the page said earlier, and it can differ from the copy checked on 2026-10-04.Attribution European Commission, Opinion C(2025) 5361 on the assessment of the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice (1 August 2025). Reuse European Union; quoted briefly under the editorial policy. Selekoa practice: metadata, attributed paraphrases and short attributed quotations under the editorial policy (at most 50 words each; at most 400 quoted words per document across the dataset, and about 10% of a document under about 2,000 words). Documents are linked externally, not redistributed. Publisher terms that forbid quotation override this practice. Check notes Added at the admission of the frameworks-to-law pack (research/frameworks-to-law). Added at admission: the schema requires a provision record to quote the edition. The passage is the one the dataset already quotes from paragraph (57) for the Code’s publication record, so it adds no quoted words; it was matched at admission in a fresh retrieval whose SHA-256 equals the pack’s. No human editorial review. Status and meaning Editorial status. Not reviewed by an editor . An exploratory record that no editor has accepted. This status does not say whether a person has read any linked passage. Each evidence record above shows how it was checked.
Relation. An exact framework edition states one provision: a capability threshold or risk level and its trigger, a required safeguard or action, a decision authority (who decides, recommends, can overrule or is informed), or a stated exception. The quoted text records what the edition says, not implementation, compliance or effectiveness. Provisions with the same key align across editions of one family.
Date. Dated by the Opinion.
Record ID fl-eu-opinion-conclusion