Non-interference is a prerequisite for privacy, but here it does not require omission but rather that a person wanted the state to perform an action through third parties. I know that balancing rights is always difficult and never leaves everyone satisfied, but such an extreme interpretation is even dangerous, it is almost an absolute shield capable of invalidating much of the law; btw, it would be fun to see the brazen court uphold controversial laws like those against prostitution or hard drugs.
But there remains the original problem, that anti-abortion law exists because they consider the fetus to be another third party, that's a fundamental issue here and from the news I've seen the court seems to have ignored it.
If someone wants to establish abortion as a european right I am fine with that, but it is something that must be done through legislative processes, it is not the competence of a court on its own and even less so in a veiled and botched way.