What is new about the internet is the ephemeral nature of the content, and the ease and speed with which it can be copied. Copyright law generally has not caught up with these factors, so to that extent the CJEU does have scope to be creative (as do other jurisdictions). The disruption can be seen (for example) in Wikipedia's article on Copyright, in particular the second paragraph explaining the weight given in existing law to copyrightable content being in some fixed physical form, and inconsistencies between jurisdictions on that point. Put it another way, you can copyright a book, but can you copyright a story? That seems to be a moot point. It also observes that copyright in many places is a civil matter anyway, protection by legislation is by no means universal. If a "book" or "movie" is originally created in digital form, and never put to paper or celluloid, there are already jurisdictions where copyright law is a hollow threat.
We also need to be careful of the distinction between copyright and right to privacy, which is a separate issue.
I think there are valid physical analogies because although the internet is new, the human behaviour is at least as old as writing. If a hyperlink is (or is deemed to facilitate) a breach of copyright, where does that leave a public library catalogue?