From the journal

Spain Tables AI Governance Organic Law in Parliament, Names AESIA as Supervisor

On 26 May 2026, Spain's Council of Ministers approved a draft Organic Law on the proper use and governance of artificial intelligence, implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 into national law. The draft was published in the Official Journal of the Spanish Parliament on 12 June 2026. The Spanish Artificial Intelligence Supervisory Agency (AESIA) is designated as Spain's national market surveillance authority and single EU point of contact. Spain is the first EU member state to submit national implementing legislation for the EU AI Act.

2 min read

Spain's Council of Ministers approved a draft Organic Law on the proper use and governance of artificial intelligence on 26 May 2026. The Council submitted the text to the Spanish Parliament as an Organic Bill, where it was published in the Official Journal of the Parliament on 12 June 2026. The law is at the proposed rule stage, with parliamentary debate and amendment ahead. Spain is the first EU member state to submit national implementing legislation for Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (the EU AI Act).

The draft law designates AESIA (Agencia Espanola de Supervision de la Inteligencia Artificial) as the national market surveillance authority under Article 70 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 and as Spain's single point of contact with EU institutions. AESIA operates as a public-law body with managerial autonomy. The draft law requires public sector bodies to maintain an inventory of AI systems used in administrative proceedings and establishes an AI delegate role within each relevant public authority, responsible for coordinating AI governance within the body and advising on public procurement involving AI systems.

AI system providers and deployers operating in Spain, including those established in other EU member states with users or counterparties in Spain, must comply with AESIA as the competent market surveillance authority. Public sector bodies procuring or deploying AI in administrative decision-making face national obligations beyond those in the EU AI Act itself. The draft law imposes severe penalties aligned with the EU AI Act penalty structure, reaching up to EUR 35 million or 7% of global annual turnover for the most serious violations.

The parliamentary process may amend the current text. Spanish Organic Laws require approval by an absolute majority of the Congreso de los Diputados, adding a procedural constraint that could slow passage or prompt negotiated revisions. The allocation of enforcement jurisdiction between AESIA and the Agencia Espanola de Proteccion de Datos (AEPD) for AI systems that also process personal data remains to be resolved in the legislative process.

We advise AI system providers, deployers, and public sector bodies on EU AI Act compliance and national implementing legislation across EU member states. Work we undertake includes AESIA registration and notification procedures, market surveillance authority liaison for Spain, AI system conformity assessments, national AI governance programme design, and public sector AI procurement compliance reviews.

Source: Government of Spain, Council of Ministers Press Conference Record, 26 May 2026

AI Regulatory

More from the journal

See all
Illia Prokopiev

MLR Registration and the FCA Cryptoasset Gateway to 25 October 2027

This matter concerns the transition of a United Kingdom cryptoasset business from FCA registration under the Money Laundering Regulations 2017 to Part 4A permission under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The question is whether MLR registration gives conversion, grandfathering, priority, or a right to continue after 25 October 2027, and what an affected firm should do before the gateway closes. This analysis assumes an existing UK-facing cryptoasset business, no relevant Part 4A permission, and an intention to continue after commencement.

Illia Prokopiev

Matched-Category Analysis of the Hong Kong Stablecoin Issuer Route and the Singapore Digital Payment Token Service Route

This matter concerns whether current licensing data supports a commercial comparison between Hong Kong’s stablecoin issuer route and Singapore’s digital payment token service route. The question is whether the proposition remains legally accurate as of 12 August 2026. “Commercially useful” is assumed to mean useful for selecting a market-entry and operating model, not proof that either regulator is more permissive.

Illia Prokopiev

ESMA's 2026 Custody Resilience CSA and the Rules That Actually Bind

ESMA’s 2026 Common Supervisory Action is a coordinated national review of digital operational resilience in crypto-asset custody. It will test whether selected crypto-asset service providers can demonstrate effective controls across six announced workstreams. The legal questions are which requirements are binding, how national competent authorities may assess control effectiveness, and what consequences may follow from a deficiency. This analysis assumes that the firm is permitted under MiCA Article 59 to provide custody and administration within Article 3(1)(17).