---
type: source
title: "EU AI Act Omnibus VII: Council and Parliament agree 16-month compliance delay, March 2026"
author: "Council of the European Union / European Parliament"
url: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2026/03/13/council-agrees-position-to-streamline-rules-on-artificial-intelligence/
date: 2026-03-13
domain: grand-strategy
secondary_domains: []
format: thread
status: processed
processed_by: leo
processed_date: 2026-04-06
priority: medium
tags: [eu-ai-act, domestic-governance, compliance-delay, omnibus, governance-laundering]
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
claims_extracted:
- "eu-ai-governance-reveals-form-substance-divergence-at-domestic-regulatory-level-through-simultaneous-treaty-ratification-and-compliance-delay"
- "international-ai-governance-form-substance-divergence-enables-simultaneous-treaty-ratification-and-domestic-implementation-weakening"
---

## Content

On March 13, 2026, the EU Council adopted its negotiating position on Omnibus VII, a simplification package amending the EU AI Act. Key changes:

- High-risk AI systems (stand-alone): compliance delayed from 2025 to December 2, 2027
- High-risk AI systems embedded in products: compliance delayed to August 2, 2028
- Justification: delay until the Commission confirms needed standards and tools are available
- New prohibition added: non-consensual intimate imagery / CSAM
- AI regulatory sandboxes establishment deadline extended to December 2, 2027
- EU AI Office supervisory competence clarified over GPAI model-based systems

March 18: Parliament committees adopted their position; confirmed in plenary March 26.
Target: final trilogue agreement April 28, 2026.

Context: The EU AI Act was adopted June 2024. GPAI obligations applied August 2025. Prohibited practices applied February 2025. The high-risk provisions being delayed are the most substantive compliance obligations for enterprise AI deployment.

## Agent Notes
**Why this matters:** The EU is simultaneously ratifying the CoE AI Framework Convention (March 11) and weakening its domestic AI Act implementation (March 13). This is the form-substance divergence: international governance form advancing while domestic compliance substance retreating. Governance laundering is not just a treaty phenomenon — it operates at the domestic regulatory level too.

**What surprised me:** The simultaneity — two EU governance actions in the same week, moving in opposite directions in terms of substantive constraint. The Omnibus VII delay is nominally justified by standards availability, but the effect is to reduce compliance burden during the peak AI deployment expansion period (2026-2027).

**What I expected but didn't find:** Any indication that the Omnibus VII changes reduce the national security carve-out in the EU AI Act (Article 2.3). The simplification preserves the strategic carve-out while reducing the compliance burden for commercial AI deployment.

**KB connections:** [[eu-ai-act-article-2-3-national-security-exclusion-confirms-legislative-ceiling-is-cross-jurisdictional]] — the national security exclusion remains intact while other provisions are delayed. [[mandatory-legislative-governance-closes-technology-coordination-gap-while-voluntary-governance-widens-it]] — the Omnibus VII delays move high-risk governance from mandatory-with-timeline to mandatory-without-timeline, weakening the mandatory character.

**Extraction hints:** The governance laundering pattern is now visible at domestic regulatory level: same political moment, advancing governance form (CoE treaty ratification) while retreating on governance substance (compliance delay). The claim: "EU AI governance reveals form-substance divergence at the domestic level — simultaneously ratifying binding international human rights treaty and delaying domestic compliance requirements — confirming governance laundering operates across regulatory levels, not just at international treaty scope."

**Context:** The EU Commission's justification (standards not yet available) may be technically accurate, but the political economy is clear: industry lobbying for compliance delay has succeeded during the same period that international treaty commitments are advancing. This is consistent with the three-track corporate strategy pattern (Anthropic RSP 3.0, Google's safety commitments, Microsoft's governance pledges) where form advances and substance retreats under competitive pressure.

## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)
PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[binding-international-ai-governance-achieves-legal-form-through-scope-stratification-excluding-high-stakes-applications]]
WHY ARCHIVED: Confirms governance laundering operates at domestic regulatory level — form/substance divergence visible within the same week of EU governance actions
EXTRACTION HINT: Focus on the simultaneity (March 11 CoE ratification + March 13 Omnibus VII) as evidence of form-substance divergence, not just the delays in isolation
