On 7 March 2025 the European Commission adopted Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/454, setting out the establishment and operation of the scientific panel of independent experts under the EU AI Act.
Where the scientific panel sits in the architecture
Implementation of the AI Act does not depend on a single legal text but on a set of bodies: the AI Office handles enforcement, the AI Board coordinates the member states, the advisory forum brings together stakeholders, and the scientific panel provides independent technical judgement.
The panel’s function is to give expert opinions in technical assessments concerning general-purpose AI models. At an early stage of applying the rules, the authority of technical judgement directly affects the practical meaning of compliance, which is why the panel’s composition and operating rules are worth watching.
Why companies should note this regulation
For companies, the significance of the panel lies not in its organisational details but in the way it will influence how technical standards are interpreted. When a regulator has to judge whether a model reaches a particular capability threshold or whether a risk mitigation measure is sufficient, expert opinion often becomes the practical yardstick.
See the obligations on general-purpose AI models and the GPAI code of practice: compliance instruments ultimately pass through a stage of technical judgement.
The overall implementation rhythm
From the prohibitions applying in February 2025, to the general-purpose model obligations taking effect in August, to this institutional regulation in March, implementation of the AI Act has the character of obligations and institutions being built in step. See the transparency rules taking effect and the digital omnibus proposal: rules continue to be adjusted and refined.
What companies exporting to the EU can prepare
First, make compliance evidence technically readable. See the Parliament’s position on the AI Act omnibus: model documentation, assessment reports and records of risk mitigation measures need to withstand external technical review.
Second, watch for updates to standards and guidance. The standards on which technical judgement depends will be adjusted as practice develops, so a compliance plan needs room to iterate.
Third, distinguish institutional steps from obligations taking effect. Setting up a body does not itself create new company obligations, but it signals a change in enforcement capacity.
Regulation tends to land first at the level of institutions and standards, and only then reach individual companies.
This article is based on EU Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/454 and public information and is for reference only; it does not constitute legal advice.