It's very odd to issue a ruling based on whether blocking TPB was effective or ineffective. The only question a judge should ponder is whether the block was justified legally.
No, no, no. It's not odd at all, it's part of the law (at least in Europe). Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union states:
Any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by this Charter must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. Subject to the principle of proportionality, limitations may be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others. (emphasis mine)
The judge explicitly cited this in the ruling and stated that the objective of general interest here could only be the reduction of copyright infringement. This objective was not met because the blocking TPB was ineffective. The law was applied, nothing else.
People should start reading the actual judgments before jumping to conclusions about judges, in the ones I've read so far (only dutch ones, YMMV) the judges go a long way explaining how the came to there conclusions and whats the legal basis for this (and proportionality is often part of the equation).