judgment and thus it is not an effective remedy for the applicants to apply to the administrative court. 27. As it is observed that the complaints of the applicants in relation to article 26 of the Constitution are not explicitly devoid of a basis, it needs to be decided that the applications are admissible. 2. In Terms of Merits 28. The applicants have stated that the court judgments indicated by TİB as the basis of blockage are not towards the complete blockage of access to the web site with the domain name twitter.com, that the fact, that the TİB blocked access to the web site with the domain name twitter.com by trying out arbitrary methods of blocking access, does not have any legal basis; that this action significantly restricts the right to disseminate information in addition to the opportunity to access information; that this action blocks access not only to the information which exists on the said web site but also to 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. 29. The applicants have also stated that access on Internet medium can only be blocked with a court judgment, that this blockage can only be imposed by means of blocking access to the content in relation to the part where the violation occurs, 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 complete blockage of access to the web site despite the court judgment ordering partial blockage on the basis of URL, that TİB’s blockage of access to the web site with the domain name twitter.com completely despite the fact that the court judgments indicated as the basis of TİB’s decision of blockage are only blocking access to certain URL addresses is legally not possible. 30. The applicants have also stated that the blockage of access to the said web site is contrary to the constitutional criteria on the restriction of fundamental rights and freedoms, that the balance between the protection of privacy and the freedom of expression cannot be stricken and that the blockage of access to the web site with the domain name twitter.com immediately before the local elections to be held on March 30, 2014 creates an impact of indirect censorship. 31. Article 13 of the Constitution with the side title “Restriction of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms” is as follows: “Fundamental rights and freedoms may only be restricted on the basis of the reasons mentioned in the relevant articles of the Constitution and by law without prejudice to their essence. These restrictions cannot be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution, the requirements of the democratic social order and of the secular Republic and the principle of proportionality.” 32. Article 26 of the Constitution with the side heading of ''Freedom of expression and dissemination of thought'' is as follows: “Everyone has the right to express and disseminate their thoughts and convictions orally, in writing, in pictures or through other means individually or collectively. This freedom includes the liberty of receiving or imparting information or ideas without interference by official authorities. …