A request for information, an inspection or an invitation to a structured dialogue could restart the period within which the AI Office may impose a fine. That is one effect of the draft implementing regulation put out for consultation on 12 October 2026 by the European Commission. Contributions are open until 9 November. The text has been neither adopted nor approved by the Commission.
For operators falling under the direct competence of the AI Office, the issue is knowing when proceedings can no longer lead to a fine. The draft details interruptions and suspensions of a five-year period. It also organises access to the file by the company concerned and its external advisers.
Who falls directly under the AI Office
The draft concerns sanctions falling to the AI Office, not those imposed by national authorities. Article 75(1), as amended by the digital omnibus on AI, defines two branches of exclusive competence: certain systems based on a general-purpose model where model and system are developed by the same provider or group; and systems that constitute or are integrated into a very large online platform or a very large online search engine designated under the DSA.
The first branch contains exclusions, notably for systems related to products in Annex I and for certain critical infrastructures. The competence concerns providers; it extends to deployers only where they are also the provider or belong to the same group. The text therefore does not create a single procedure applicable to all companies using AI.
A developer that trains a model and turns it into a consumer assistant, or a platform designated under the DSA that integrates an AI system into its service, would thus face the Commission rather than a national authority. Obligations specific to providers of general-purpose models fall under a different regime, which this draft does not govern.
A five-year limitation period that could restart from zero
Article 75c(8) of the regulation already sets the principle: the AI Office's powers to impose sanctions are subject to a five-year limitation period, starting from the day of the infringement, or from the day it ceases in the case of a continuing or repeated infringement. The same paragraph entrusts the implementing act with specifying "the circumstances in which limitation periods are interrupted". That is the purpose of Article 4 of the draft.
Article 4 of the draft would restart this period after investigation steps by the Commission. It cites requests for documents or explanations, access to evaluate a system, inspections, structured dialogue and the opening or reopening of proceedings. An interruption would trigger a new five-year period.
The text provides for a cap equal to twice the initial period, i.e. ten years without a fine or periodic penalty payment. It distinguishes, however, between interruptions and suspensions: an appeal against a Commission decision before the Court of Justice of the European Union or the wait for judicial authorisation of an inspection could suspend the clock. The total duration could therefore exceed ten years in the event of suspension.
For a provider that has ended a contested practice, an investigation step could thus open a new five-year period, subject to the cap and suspensions provided for. Correcting the practice would not by itself end exposure to sanctions. Conversely, without an interrupting act or suspension, the default period would remain five years.
Enforcement of sanctions would follow its own clock (Article 5): five years from the day the decision becomes final, interrupted by a decision amending the amount or by any recovery measure, and suspended as long as payment deadlines are granted or enforcement is suspended by a court.
A mechanism borrowed from competition law
The mechanism is close to that of Article 25 of the European regulation on antitrust procedures: five-year period, interruption by investigation steps, cap set at double and suspensions. The AI draft, however, contains a reference to a non-existent "paragraph 6" to extend this cap during a suspension. This inconsistency must be clarified before reading the text as a definitive rule.
Structured dialogue deserves particular attention. It allows an operator to propose commitments in the context of proceedings; according to the draft, an invitation by the Commission to such dialogue would suffice to interrupt the period. The timetable would therefore also depend on exchanges with the AI Office, before any possible sanction.
Broader access to the file reserved for external advisers
The second part specifies the rights of defence provided for by Article 75d. Access to the file would be granted on request after notification of the preliminary findings. The company would receive the documents cited therein, redacted of business secrets. Broader access, including confidential documents, could be granted to a limited number of external lawyers, economists and technical experts, under conditions set by the Commission.
These advisers could not be employees of the company concerned. If they join it, or join a competitor active on the same markets, during the investigation or within three years of its closure, they would have to inform the Commission and certify that they no longer have access to the confidential documents. Access would remain subject to the exclusions in the draft and to exceptions allowing certain documents to be refused or redacted.
In-house engineers would therefore not benefit from this broader access to confidential documents reserved for external advisers. For a model provider, preparing the defence could require external technical experts capable of understanding the system evaluations. This is a separate issue from limitation periods, touching on the organisation of proceedings.
Practical rules and timetable
As of 16 October, the official consultation remains open and no adoption has been recorded. The act will have to be adopted before producing effects; the draft provides for entry into force twenty days after publication in the Official Journal.
Contributions may address interrupting acts, the interaction of suspensions and the arrangements for access to the file. They are receivable until 9 November 2026.
Our articles will then appear first in Google Top Stories.