C-532/17 · 2018 · UK 261 AND EC 261
Wolfgang Wirth and Others v Thomson Airways Ltd
The airline that bears operational responsibility for the flight is the one that pays. The Court held on 4 July 2018 that a carrier which leases out an aircraft and crew under a wet lease, without operational responsibility for the flights, is not the operating air carrier under Art. 2(b), even where the booking confirmation states the flight is operated by that carrier.
REVIEWED AGAINST RULE SET V6 AND THE CITED PRIMARY SOURCES · UPDATED 7 AUGUST 2026
- COURT
- Court of Justice of the European Union (Third Chamber)
- CASE NUMBER
- C-532/17
- JUDGMENT
- 4 July 2018
- CITATION
- ECLI:EU:C:2018:527
What the case was about
Passengers booked Hamburg to Cancún under a TUIfly flight number; TUIfly had chartered the aircraft and crew from Thomson Airways under a wet lease.
The booking confirmation said the flight was operated by Thomson Airways, and when it ran significantly late the passengers claimed against Thomson.
TUIfly held the slots, marketed the flight and carried the operational responsibility under the lease.
What it changed
- Claims go to the carrier that decided to perform the flight and answers for it, not to the owner of the metal.
- What the booking confirmation prints does not decide who the operating carrier is.
- Code share and package bookings resolve the same way: Art. 2(b) covers a carrier performing the flight on behalf of another company that holds the passenger's contract, so the claim follows whoever actually operated.
SOURCES
- Case C-532/17 Wirth and Others v Thomson Airways, judgment of 4 July 2018 (ECLI:EU:C:2018:527) · EUR-Lex · checked 7 August 2026
- Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, Art. 2(b) · EUR-Lex · checked 7 August 2026