Contrary to the USA several European Countries do not have a Supreme Court that can strike down laws made by parliament. It is not a prerogative of the courts to judge what parliaments write.
That is very eighteenth century Montesquian thinking. In England there even isn't a Constitution.

However a citizen can call on an EU Directive in court to strike down a law if it is in conflict. So what this does, if adopted, is it gives citizens a means to ask for a judicial review of a law.

Wouldn't it be included, than this kind of review wouldn't be possible in several EU member states. In that cases the absence of “due process” would only be judged ex-post, after someone has been shut out from the Internet, and that process then would also include all kinds of case-dependent circumstances, fuzzying the principle review.

As the formal discussion in parliament around the Amendment is a part of the history that has to be taken into account with reviews, it is in this case obvious that it regards turning them off.
If parliamentary debate would have turned around making Internet Access a universal service, to be provided for by governments, then your latter interpretation would be justified.

EU Directives have to be translated in national legislation. If a national legislature interprets it as a prescription to write an act that creates a “positive right” it is their own decision.

Contrary to the USA several European Countries do not have a Supreme Court that can strike down laws made by parliament. It is not a prerogative of the courts to judge what parliaments write.
That is very eighteenth century Montesquian thinking. In England there even isn't a Constitution.

However a citizen can call on an EU Directive in court to strike down a law if it is in conflict. So what this does, if adopted, is it gives citizens a means to ask for a judicial review of a law.

Wouldn't it be included, than this kind of review wouldn't be possible in several EU member states. In that cases the absence of “due process” would only be judged ex-post, after someone has been shut out from the Internet, and that process then would also include all kinds of case-dependent circumstances, fuzzying the principle review.

As the formal discussion in parliament around the Amendment is a part of the history that has to be taken into account with reviews, it is in this case obvious that it regards turning them off.
If parliamentary debate would have turned around making Internet Access a universal service, to be provided for by governments, then your latter interpretation would be justified.

EU Directives have to be translated in national legislation. If a national legislature interprets it as a prescription to write an act that creates a “positive right” it is their own decision.