That's a charitable phrasing. As per Protocol 2 on the functioning of the European Union, article 8 [2]:
The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction in actions on grounds of infringement of the principle of subsidiarity by a legislative act, brought in accordance with the rules laid down in Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by Member States
What Poland did was declare nationally (government, and then a national court) that the EC was infringing on its sovereignty (principle of subsidiarity). But as the above text says, national governments don't have jurisdiction when it comes to matters questioning the primacy of European law.
[2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12...
This is the essence of a divergence of theory and practice. The text says one thing. In reality, something else plays out.
I think the text will prevail. But that delay (and uncertainty) is precisely what I’m talking about. And it happens everywhere, with active regulatory arbitrage an all-but-admitted strategy of a significant section of the SME space.
I don't think this is true. The impact will be felt immediately all over Europe, in fact it is already in the news here and people are already discussing dropping GA from websites:
https://www.nu.nl/tech/6178229/google-analytics-binnenkort-m...
There is zero chance, for instance, that anyone in Greece or Portugal or Ireland will be impacted, judicially, by this decision for several years. That’s better than before. But it’s far from e.g. a U.S. federal court ruling in California’s impact in New York, or a French court’s ruling in Paris in Marseille.