<never flown an airbus but...>
The airbus commuter decides how much control movement it will allow. Depending on the phase of flight a full right stick input may result in different amounts of aileron movement. In other words, you are just suggesting to the computer where you want to go and then it decides if it is going to go there or not.
So with nasty crosswinds, especially when it is gusty, sometimes throwing the stick all around the place doesn't get the effect you want. The ground speed is probably one of the many factors the computer looks at before deciding how much roll to actually throw in.
I know that this is not true, it is one of the many myths out there.
The Airbus uses C* control law, the 777 uses C*U. The only difference is that, in an amazing bit of inanity, the 777 requires you to actually manually trim the thing (sigh).
In either case, the law is a rate input.
Separately, the Airbus (and the 777 to a lesser extent, and contrary to recommendations from CAST and FSF, et al, plus IBP) has envelope protection, to prevent exceeding various limitations.
Neither of these should impact the landing in the conditions above, from my recollection of the system. More likely, the issue was either:
a: a lower crosswind demonstrated number;
b: company limitations requiring strict adherance to the manufacturer demonstrated number, or, perhaps, a lower limit set by the operator;
c. Airbus sense of a windshear due to differential between GS and TAS which led the system to increase speeds for safety beyond stabilized approach criteria.
I recall being stuck on the ground in CDG due to our company requiring hard limits, while many other operators were departing as they left it to the Capt discretion. IBP (Industry Best Practices) is to use "hard" limits, incidentally. This was recommended out of the CAST ExCom off the LOC JSIT.
