Yes it does. It's not as strict as U.S. law, and it even recognizes 'private use' - for example I may copy a portion or all of certain types of copyrighted works (including movies and music, but not books) for private use, without having to notify or pay the copyright owner. He/she is reimbursed from a small tax levied on all recording media and devices (CD/DVD media and burners, HDDs, ...). The law also recognizes derivative works, which are allowed (a photo of a sculpture, for example) and other useful concepts. Besides, our police has never tried to go after small-time infringers who use p2p to dl movies, music, and software. All copyright-related busts were against companies using unlicensed software on a large scale or against individuals regularly selling unlicensed copies of copyrighted works.
The court decision in question here does not mention fair use, it is based on the judge's notion that news articles are just reporting factual events, and thus are not creative works (yes, we still remember the purpose of copyright :). I know the original reasoning of the plaintiff and I have to say that in my opinion the judge is wrong, since the aggregated articles are sometimes also author commentaries, which clearly are creative works, sometimes of high quality. But I cannot imagine that many of our judges are educated enough in the modern issues of copyright in the virtual world to recognize the problem, and copyright laws is not really considered a big issue here. We are still waiting on the bastard who will come and turn it into a serious business.