also understood upon the examination of the judgments submitted as basis that the said judgments only block access to certain URL addresses and that no judgment is rendered by courts of instance in relation to directly blocking access to the web site twitter.com. 47. It is apparent that the decision of the Presidency of Telecommunication and Communication in relation to the blockage of access as per the relevant provisions of law requires a court judgment as a rule, that the competent courts to this end are the criminal courts of peace and that the judgments rendered by the courts are protective measures of criminal procedure in terms of their quality. According to this, TİB can only enforce a judgment for blockage on the basis of a court judgment that is rendered to this end and that conforms to the style prescribed in this judgment. 48. It is stated above (§§ 37-40) which general principles would be used as basis of action in relation to whether the intervention by TİB, which is a public administration, to block access to a web site is required in a democratic society or not and whether the intervention has been proportional or not. As per article 13 of the Constitution, the restrictions towards the fundamental rights and freedoms shall be prescribed by law and the restrictions shall be in conformity with law. In the concrete case, it is observed that the action of blocking access is not performed on the basis of URL but by means of blocking access to an entire web site. Taking into consideration the regulations present in the Law No. 5651, it is obvious that the action which goes beyond the court judgments indicated to be the basis of the decision of TİB and which brings along the complete blockage of access to the web site twitter.com that is a social media network with millions of users does not have any legal basis and that the blockage of access to this social sharing web site without a legal basis and by means of a decision of prohibition whose borders are not definite constitutes a severe intervention on the freedom of expression which is one of the most basic values of democratic societies. 49. Under these circumstances, taking into consideration the importance, in a democratic state of law, of the freedom of expression which constitutes the subject of the claim of violation that is the subject of the individual application, it needs to be decided that the freedom of expression of the applicants which is protected by article 26 of the Constitution is violated due to the fact that the blockage of access to the web site with the domain name twitter.com by TİB is a severe intervention on the freedom of expression of not only the addressees of the judgments which are indicated to be the basis of this blockage and are rendered on the basis of URLs but also of all users who make use of the twitter.com network and that this does not have any legal basis. V. JUDGMENT In the light of the reasons explained, it is UNANIMOUSLY decided on 2/4/2014; A. That the application is ADMISSIBLE, B. That the freedom of expression of the applicants guaranteed by article 26 of the Constitution is BREACHED, C. That a total of TL 1.706,10 comprising of an individual application fee of TL 206,10 and a counsel’s fee of TL 1.500,00 BE PAID to Yaman Akdeniz, the applicant, a total of TL 1.706,10 comprising of an individual application fee of TL 206,10 and a counsel’s fee of TL 1.500,00 BE PAID to