Many researchers say that there was a dual effect from the CFC ban, and the substitution of other CFC molecules. They think that the hole is still slowly expanding, but that the rate of expansion is now lower. They also fear that the first generation of replacement CFCs are in fact extremely powerful global warming agents - many times more powerful in that regard than simple CO2. Warming, in itself, has the secondary effect of making ozone production slower, thus making the seasonal "hole" effect more severe.
It is a compromise much like use of nuclear power to avoid coal fired electricity plants. Yes, the CO2 from coal is of course reduced, but the other effects (waste) may be even less manageable. Of course, if you are only focused on CO2 (like most of the global warming enthusiasts), then you are probably willing to make any tradeoff whatsoever - sort of like the fixation on ozone and the CFCs some years back - back when everybody thought the earth was cooling, BTW.
As there are only a few decades of actual data from observation at the poles, what happens over the next 50 years to ozone is really as much speculation as what global temperatures will do.
