So it doesn’t exist and you have no statistics to support your claim beyond personal anecdotes.

Trusting the accuracy of my experience is a problem for you, not me. I’ve seen the dysfunctionality many times over 1st hand & I’ve often heard other GDPR complainants say the same. I’ve been to privacy conferences where speakers talk about how their complaint citing many different violations would be acted on on the basis of just one of the violations. Someone from Noyb said a DPA cherry-picked 1 out of 6 or so violations and enforced it. But then the other violations simply got ignored. And their complaint about the ignored complaints was also ignored. I’ve seen the same, where the front desk gave a bogus rationale that (even if correct) could only possibly refute 1 out of my ~8 or so cited violations.

The problem is widespread enough that Digital Courage plans to ask the EU to write a new law that actually forces DPAs to enforce article 77. Watch for it.

Most EU countries have civil law so other courts decisions are not legally binding, only the word of the law is.

The word of law can be very ambiguous. Even in Europe. It still needs interpretation.

This is what happened when a data subject demanded that a data controller list who they share the data with. The letter of the GDPR law says they only have to mention categories of info that’s shared, not who it is shared with. So the data controller refused the request. That clause was recently (this year) “interpretted” such that data controllers actually do have to state who they share with (which contradicts the word of law). It’s a good outcome for consumers, but a contradiction that proves you cannot rely on the word of law in Europe.

It doesn’t seem to mention courts at all.

You can ask the source’s author (Noyb) directly yourself how an Austrian court decision had EU-wide impact.