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

Pub
  • 28 August 2026
  • Immigration

Right to Work and Sponsor Licence Changes 2026: Key dates for businesses

In this podcast, immigration solicitors Ruth Karimatsenga and Monica Mastropasqua discuss the key immigration compliance changes coming into force in September and October 2026 and what employers, HR teams, sponsors and individuals should do to prepare.

art
  • 28 August 2026
  • Commercial Real Estate

Modernising security of tenure: The Law Commission’s follow up consultation paper

On 16th June 2026, the Commission published its second consultation paper: Business Tenancies: the right to renew – modernising security of tenure.

Pub
  • 27 August 2026
  • Litigation and dispute resolution

The Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions – ICC Rules 2026 – Factsheet

This factsheet provides an overview of the ICC’s Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions (HEAP), outlining some of the key procedural features introduced by Appendix VI of the 2026 Rules and the potential benefits of this new expedited process.

art
  • 27 August 2026
  • Corporate and M&A

EMIs – April 2026 changes explained

On 6 April 2026 the Enterprise Management Incentive scheme (EMI) was expanded to make EMIs accessible to a wider range of businesses.

art
  • 19 August 2026
  • Employment

Managing employee redundancies: Frequently asked questions (FAQs)

Redundancy should be an employer’s last option when restructuring their business. There are necessary steps that should be taken to ensure that redundancy is the best move forward

art
  • 18 August 2026
  • Immigration

Home Office curtailment of Sponsored Workers’ permission: Why employers and employees must act quickly

The Home Office has recently changed the speed at which it processes sponsor notifications following the end of a sponsored worker’s employment.