Search

How can we help?

Icon

DSAR: Do I need to provide names if requested?

Under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), in both the EU and UK versions, employees have the right to request access to their personal data from their employer called a Data Subject Access Request (DSAR).

The employee is entitled to be given a copy of their personal data together with certain information which includes information as to ‘the recipients or categories of recipients to whom data has been or will be disclosed’.

Many employers when responding to such requests prefer to provide the ‘categories of recipients’ rather than specific names and, as such, may refer to groups such as ‘business contacts’ or ‘HR’.

However, this point has come up recently in the EU case of RW v. Osterreichische Post (OP)

The facts on this DSAR case

The data subject in this case made a data access request to OP. The company OP had provided general descriptions of the recipients of the data (e.g. “business customers for marketing purposes”) but the data subject did not believe this was good enough and asked OP to specifically identify the third parties that his personal data had been shared with.

The Advocate General’s opinion

The Advocate General usually gives an opinion prior to the European Court of Justice handing down its own judgment. The Judgment does typically follow the opinion but it does not have to.

In the Advocate General’s opinion, the EU GDPR requires an employer to provide information as to the specific recipients, if it is requested to do so by the employee. It recognised that the EU GDPR allows a choice between categories or specific recipients but said that this choice was for the employee to make, not the employer.

Many employers when responding to such requests prefer to provide the ‘categories of recipients’ rather than specific names and, as such, may refer to groups such as ‘business contacts’ or ‘HR’.

What this means for the UK GDPR?

Firstly, this is an opinion by the Advocate General and may not be followed by the European Court of Justice at all. Secondly, this is an EU case involving interpretation of EU law (the EU GDPR) and is not, therefore, binding on the UK. However, as the UK GDPR uses the same wording it is arguable that this case could have some impact on the way the UK GDPR is interpreted.

It is unclear how specific the requirement is in this specific case, but it could be argued from this case that if an employee requests the names of those in HR who have seen his data, rather than just accepting a ‘HR’ categorisation, then an employer may need to provide it. This makes compliance with such requests even more onerous for organisations.

It will be interesting to see how this point plays out in the UK, particularly given the government’s recent consultation on data protection (including access requests) which is aimed, in part, at reducing the burdens on organisations. For further support with your data subject access requests contact our employment solicitors.

Disclaimer
This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.

Author profile

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

art
  • 29 October 2026
  • Immigration

UK Immigration shake-up: More flexibility for skilled workers, but at what cost?

The UK Government has outlined further changes to its immigration system, with new measures affecting international graduates, sponsored workers, and businesses employing overseas talent.

art
  • 28 October 2026
  • Privacy and Data Protection

Remote working: 5 key data protection risks for employers

Remote working has become more prominent in modern business. While flexible working arrangements can improve productivity and employee wellbeing, they also create new data protection risks. Regardless of the physical location in which work is done, compliance with UK GDPR does not change.

art
  • 27 October 2026
  • Employment

Fire and Rehire update: Key changes delayed

The Government has published two documents giving key updates to the anticipated changes around ‘fire and rehire’ and restricted contractual variations, coming about as a result of the Employment Rights Act 2025 (“ERA 2025”). We now understand that these changes will now be delayed to March, rather than January 2027.

art
  • 26 October 2026
  • Corporate and M&A

Shareholders’ Agreements for Founders and Investors – SHA Series Part 3 of 5

A shareholders’ agreement is arguably one of the most valuable corporate governance agreements (along with articles of association) in any private UK company with more than one shareholder.

art
  • 23 October 2026
  • Litigation and dispute resolution

Section 172 Companies Act 2006: Key lessons from Saxon Woods v Costa

The Supreme Court’s decision in Saxon Woods v Costa UKSC 21 clarifies directors’ duties under Section 172 Companies Act 2006, confirming that good faith requires both honest belief and appropriate conduct.

art
  • 19 October 2026
  • Immigration

Right to Work Checks: Are UK businesses becoming immigration enforcement officers?

The UK’s Right to Work regime has undergone a significant expansion, with changes taking effect from 1 October 2026.