"Thankfully we'll soon be able to fall back on decisions by British courts, enforcing Brutish law"
That's what currently happens. The ECJ does not make decisions on the facts in a case.
It makes decisions on points of law.
In this case, whether Uber is just a technological platform for ridesharing, or that it is a transportation company. One of the key points is who sets the price (driver, rider or Uber) and since neither the rider or driver get any ability to change said price, it's a transport company.
Now that ruling has been made, the appropriate court (in Spain one presumes) can now make a ruling upon the facts in the case, including that Uber is a transport not tech company.
Each EU country legislates taxis and private hire vehicles differently, and Uber appears to be operating as a private hire company for most of them.
I'll also note that the ruling on Uber drivers being employees has some problems, in particular that Uber cannot require drivers to work (or not work) certain hours. So if there are ten drivers, and they all want to work 4pm to midnight, they can, despite it being more profitable to Uber if they did a shift system.
Never used them myself, and it's pretty clear to me (IANAL) that they are some form of transport providing company 'cos they set they bloody fares, and this is another delaying tactic from getting the actual ruling on whether they are operating taxis or private hire vehicles.