No, no it didn't.
That's not how spending works. You don't set tens of billions of euros (or dollars) on fire and then say: "Look at all this nice warmth we're making as a side effect!"
I love the concept on fusion power in the same way that I love the concept of space mining and colonies on Mars. I read science fiction books as a young man and would like that vision of the future to come true.
But the harsh economic and practical reality is that fusion power is decades away, will cost well over a hundred billion to develop, and another hundred billion to deploy over many more decades.
Meanwhile, solar, wind, and other green energy technologies can meet our current needs right now and scale well into the next century.
Fusion might, might make sense to start developing some time in the future when we have much stronger superconducting magnets. The ITER project and its already "previous gen" magnetic tapes won't be it. Its successor project, DEMO won't be it either.
To get useful amounts of power in our lifetimes, we need an agile company doing fusion in the same way SpaceX is running circles around the dinosaurs at NASA and co.
That's a very (almost literal) strawman comparison
Sure, they do first use the money to make stuff, but then they're setting that stuff on fire.
ITER is a single-use project in the same sense that NASA orders the single-use SLS rockets from ULA.
If it's possible to develop economical fusion power, I very strongly suspect that it will happen whether or not the ITER project runs to its conclusion.
Conversely, ITER and DEMO put together are not going to result in fusion power. That's the official plan. A subsequent commercial plant might, but we're talking well after the 2060s before that can happen. The DEMO reactor isn't scheduled to start operations until the 2050s!