DORA Reporting in Estonia: Finantsinspektsioon Guide for Financial Entities

Short answer

In Estonia, Finantsinspektsioon is the integrated financial supervisor and the competent authority for the financial entities within DORA scope. Crypto-asset services moved from the Financial Intelligence Unit (RAB) regime to MiCA / Finantsinspektsioon during the MiCA transition.

Who is the relevant competent authority?

Finantsinspektsioon (Estonian Financial Supervision and Resolution Authority) is the relevant competent authority for Estonia entities falling within DORA scope.

Which financial entities are typically in scope

Credit institutions (banks)
Payment institutions and electronic money institutions (PIs / EMIs)
Investment firms
Crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) authorised under MiCA
Insurance and reinsurance undertakings, where supervised in this jurisdiction
Other financial entities listed in DORA Article 2

Authority and evidence map

Entity type	Likely authority	DORA artefact	Where to verify
Banks / credit institutions	Finantsinspektsioon	ICT risk framework, incidents, BCDR, third-party register	Authority site
Payment institutions / EMIs	Finantsinspektsioon	Incident workflow, Register of Information, supplier evidence	Authority site
Investment firms / CASPs / insurers	Finantsinspektsioon	Entity-specific resilience and supervisory evidence pack	Check the competent authority listed below before filing

DORA incident reporting

DORA Article 19 establishes the duty to report major ICT-related incidents. The reporting timeline and templates are set through the related EU technical standards; once an incident is classified as major, the operating cadence is:

Initial notification — within 4 hours after classification, and no later than 24 hours after the entity becomes aware of or detects the incident.
Intermediate report — within 72 hours of the initial notification.
Final report — within one month of the initial notification, including root-cause analysis and remediation.

The cadence is set in EU law, but the local submission channel is set by the competent authority. Local reporting channels, templates and submission instructions should be verified on the competent authority website before filing.

Where to verify before filing

Before submitting a notification, Register of Information or supervisory response, verify the current local channel, form and language expectation on the competent authority website. For Estonia, start with Finantsinspektsioon.

Register of Information

DORA Article 28 requires every financial entity to maintain a Register of Information of all contractual arrangements with ICT third-party service providers, with extended content for arrangements supporting critical or important functions. Submission frequency, format and the exact local instructions are set by the competent authority. Local reporting channels, templates and submission instructions should be verified on the competent authority website before filing.

ICT third-party risk and outsourcing evidence

Article 28–30 requirements (register, contractual provisions, exit strategies, concentration analysis) sit on top of the existing outsourcing evidence stack (Estonia entities can typically reuse much of their EBA Guidelines on outsourcing arrangements work as the operating baseline). Critical-or-important-function arrangements need the full Article 30 contractual provisions and the structured register entry.

Jurisdictional nuances

Estonia historically licensed virtual-asset service providers through the Financial Intelligence Unit; the MiCA transition shifts CASP supervision to Finantsinspektsioon.
Finantsinspektsioon also acts as the national resolution authority — DORA recovery and continuity evidence is read in the context of resolution planning.
Estonia's mature digital-government infrastructure means reporting and authentication often rely on national e-ID; confirm on the Finantsinspektsioon site which channel applies for a given filing.

What not to assume

Do not assume the same filing channel applies across all EU Member States.
Do not assume a group-level notification replaces entity-level obligations.
Do not assume an outsourcing register is equivalent to the DORA Register of Information.
Do not assume TLPT applies automatically; Article 26 scope is competent-authority-led.

Evidence checklist for fintech SMBs

What a Estonia-supervised fintech SMB should keep current and inspection-ready:

ICT risk management framework approved by the management body, with a current review date.
Incident classification log with mapping to DORA Article 18 criteria and a timestamped decision trail.
Register of Information for ICT third-party arrangements (Article 28), with extended content for critical-or-important functions.
ICT third-party dependency map (provider → service → critical-or-important function).
Business continuity and DR test evidence — last test date, scope, RTO / RPO, after-action remediation.
Board / management-body reporting pack on ICT risk, incidents, third-party concentration and remediation.
Supplier contract clauses meeting Article 30 (audit rights, security standards, incident support, exit support).
Remediation tracker with owner, due date and supervisory commitment status.

How CyAdviso helps

CyAdviso runs DORA programmes for EU-licensed fintechs (EMIs, payment institutions, CASPs, investment firms) supervised by Finantsinspektsioon and other EU competent authorities. The output of a 90-day programme is a defensible evidence pack that the Finantsinspektsioon reviewer can read end to end — ICT risk framework, incident playbooks, Register of Information, third-party controls, BCDR test artefacts and a board-reporting cadence. Free DORA self-assessment or book a 15-minute call.