EvidenceSheet

Art.12 Backup policies and procedures, restoration and recovery

Financial entities document backup policies (scope of data and minimum backup frequency set by criticality or confidentiality) and restoration and recovery procedures, set up backup systems whose activation does not weaken security, and test backup and restoration periodically. When restoring with their own systems they restore onto ICT systems kept separate, both physically and logically, from the source system. Recovery time and recovery point objectives are set per function, and integrity checks and reconciliations follow any recovery. Entities other than microenterprises keep redundant ICT capacity; microenterprises decide on redundancy from their risk profile (Art. 12(4)). Further duties apply only to specific entity types: central counterparties must be able to recover every transaction in progress when the disruption hit, data reporting service providers keep backup and restoration facilities, and central securities depositories keep a geographically distant secondary processing site (Art. 12(3) and (5)). Entities listed in Article 16(1) are outside this Article and follow the simplified framework of Article 16 instead.

Source: DORA (Regulation (EU) 2022/2554), Art.12. The statement above is our statement of the clause, read from the published text and cited so you can check it against the official text, not the instrument verbatim. Open DORA (Regulation (EU) 2022/2554) in the compliance library.

Applies to the financial entities listed in Article 2. Many duties are lighter or absent for microenterprises and for the entities in Article 16(1); each statement says where. Article 19 carries the reporting clocks of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/301, Article 5.

6
artefacts
0
held by a system
3
at each review
hard
to go live
Policy repository / GRC workspace
where the evidence lives
teal = a system already holds it · olive = produced at each review. To go live: easy when half or more of the artefacts are already held by a system, moderate from a quarter to a half, hard below a quarter.

These are the artefacts auditors commonly ask for on this requirement, our guidance rather than text from the standard. Your assessor decides what is sufficient in your context, and asks for samples across the period when a report covers one.

system holds itEvidence a system already holds

none for this control

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

  • Restoration test reports from periodic backup and recovery tests · Backup / DR tooling
  • Architecture records showing restore environments separated physically and logically from source systems · Backup / DR tooling
  • Post-recovery integrity check and reconciliation records · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

  • Backup policy stating data scope and minimum backup frequency by criticality · Policy repository / GRC workspace
  • Recovery time and recovery point objective register per function · Policy repository / GRC workspace
  • Redundant capacity design, or for a microenterprise the documented risk-based decision on redundancy · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

No system holds this evidence for you: it is people and documents. Reminders and routing to the owner still save time. Put the document under version control with an owner and review date, and log each review as a record with reviewer and date.

Common gaps auditors find

Do this for your whole sheet

Paste the rows you run your controls from and get this mapping for every control at once, with the periodic-review ones flagged and a first move per row. No account for the first run.

Build my evidence sheet

Art.11 Response and recovery · Art.13 Learning and evolving