“The judge shall render his/her judgment on blocking access to be rendered within the scope of this article by means of the method of blocking access to content (in the form of URL, etc.) only in relation to the publication, section, part where the violation of personal rights occur. The blockage of access to the entire publication on the web site cannot be decided on as long as this is not compulsory. However, if the judge is of the conviction that the violation cannot be prevented by means of the method of blocking access to content by indicating a URL address, he/she can decide that access to the entire publication on the web site be blocked on the condition that the justification for this decision is indicated.” IV. EXAMINATION AND JUSTIFICATION 19. The application file was examined during the session of the court on 2/4/2014 and the following were ordered and adjudged: A. Claims of the Applicants 20. The applicants have asserted that access to twitter.com is blocked through the implementation of a protection measure by TİB on the basis of the judgments rendered by the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor of İstanbul and some courts, that the court judgments indicated by TİB as the basis of its action are not towards the complete blockage of access to the web site with the domain name twitter.com, that this practice is contrary to law and is of arbitrary nature, that it significantly restricts the right to disseminate information in addition to the opportunity to access information, that this practice blocks access to not only the information which exists on the said web site but also the information which will be shared on this social network in the future and that, in its current form, it enables censorship which is absolutely prohibited in the Constitution and that the said action is contrary to the principles in relation to freedom of expression as guaranteed in article 10 of the Convention (European Convention on Human Rights) which are adopted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). 21. The applicants have also asserted that access can only be blocked with a court judgment and in relation to the part where the violation occurs in cases where there is a claim of breach of personal rights as per clause (4) of article 9 of the Law No. 5651; that access to the entire web site can be blocked with a court judgment only on the condition that the justification for this is indicated; that it is a usurpation of function when TİB decides on blocking access to a web site completely despite the court judgment ordering partial blockage on the basis of URL; that TİB’s complete blockage of access to the web site with the domain name twitter.com, despite the fact that the court judgments indicated as the basis of TİB ’s decision of blockage are for the blocking of access to certain URL addresses, has no legal basis. The applicants have requested the determination of breach by asserting that the restriction in the form of blocking access violated their rights defined in articles 26, 27, 40 and 67 of the Constitution, claiming that the blockage of access is contrary to the criteria on the restriction of fundamental rights and freedoms, that it does not strike the balance between the protection of privacy and the freedom of expression and that the blockage of access to the web site twitter.com immediately before the local elections to be held on March 30, 2014 creates an impact of indirect censorship. B. Evaluation 1. In Terms of Admissibility