On-Premise & EU Cloud
AI systems can run on your own infrastructure or with European providers using European language models — designed so that data does not leave the EU.
The problem
Companies introducing AI are quickly directed towards US cloud services: models run on American platforms and data moves through processing chains that are difficult to understand in detail. For organisations handling sensitive employee, health, financial or contractual data, that is a practical risk, not merely a formal concern.
Internal IT policies, customer contracts or the company's own risk assessment may state clearly that this data must not be sent to services outside the EU. Many standard AI products are then unsuitable, even though the underlying need remains.
There is also an accountability problem: which model runs where, and which providers participate in the processing? Without clear answers, meeting documentation obligations becomes difficult.
The solution
The right option depends on data sensitivity, the data categories involved and your IT environment. In either case, the processing chain is assessed, documented and contractually agreed.
The AI system, including its models, runs entirely on your own infrastructure. This can be appropriate for particularly sensitive data or strict internal requirements.
Operation with German and European providers using European models such as Mistral, without US services in the agreed processing chain.
Process
Initial discussion of protection needs, data categories and existing IT policies.
Which data, systems and internal or contractual constraints need to be considered?
On-premise or EU cloud, with specific providers, models and documented data flows.
The environment is configured and tested with non-sensitive data in coordination with your IT team.
Your responsible teams review data flows, access rights and logging.
Ongoing monitoring by me, your IT team or both.
Illustrative scenario
A company handling health or employee data has a firm internal rule: no data may be sent to US services or processed outside the EU. It nevertheless wants AI support for recurring document workflows, which rules out standard cloud products.
A typical project would first assess whether the existing IT environment can support on-premise operation sensibly or whether an EU-cloud architecture with European providers meets the protection needs. The result is an architecture proposal naming providers, models and data flows, giving management, IT and data protection teams a clear basis for their decision.
FAQ
It depends on the use case. Many narrowly defined processes can use compact models on moderate hardware. Assessing whether your existing infrastructure is sufficient is part of the requirements phase, before any purchasing decision.
For well-defined tasks such as classification, extraction and drafting, European models can produce strong practical results. Their quality is tested against realistic cases before any production use.
There is no universal answer. On-premise involves higher initial investment and in-house operating responsibility; an EU cloud typically lowers the entry effort but creates ongoing usage costs. The architecture proposal compares both options honestly.
Yes. Permissions, rules and workflows are designed not to depend on one provider. A move remains a defined migration project rather than a complete rebuild — another reason to document data flows from the start.
No. EU data location is important but does not replace a project-specific assessment. Legal bases, processor arrangements and technical measures are reviewed for the use case and documented before implementation.
Next step
Briefly describe your requirements and data categories for a candid initial assessment. You can also book a call directly.