Can't copy and paste from there; relevant passage:

"...orders Google to removing the sites google.be and google.com, more precisely the links (in cache) visible through Google Web and the service Google News (...) of Belgian Francophone and German-language publishers represented by Copiepresse."

So yes, Google is interpreting the ruling correctly, there is no way to interpret it in such a way that the regular google.com shouldn't be blocked. I don't know if the newspapers asked for too much or if the judge didn't understand what he was doing; I didn't read the whole ruling.

In the 2006 injuction, Copiepresse had originally asked the judge to "order [Google] to withdraw the articles, photographs and graphic representations of the Belgian publishers of the French and German-speaking daily press, [it] represents, from all their sites (Google News and "cached" Google or any other name) from the date at which the ruling is served, under penalty of a fine for non-performance of two million euro per day of delay".

And the relevant part of the ruling was thus:

"Orders GOOGLE to withdraw from all its sites (and more specifically from Google News and as far as the Google web search engine is concerned the visible cached links) all the articles, photographs and graphics representations from the authors in respect of whom the intervening plaintiffs can prove that they retain the rights".

In another part of the document, it states that "Google News does not confine itself to placing hyperlinks but reproduces significant sections of the publishers' articles".

If you read the entire ruling, it is quite clear (as far as such a legal document can be clear) that only the copied content on Google News and the cached copies on the search result pages were problematic. Copiepresse or the judge had no issue with hyperlinks.

By taking it further, Google is playing a dangerous power game. It seems to me that this will inevitably lead to a EU anti-trust case.