What is the significance and scope of this ruling?

I consider it an important ruling. At a time when the possibilities of technological development , especially with regard to image capture and dissemination, it is essential to clearly define the legitimate and illegitimate uses of these mechanisms. I hope that the sentence declaring the intrusive mechanisms used with deceit to be illegitimate and not protected by the freedom of information will make those responsible who resort to them reflect. There are no absolute rights, nor freedom of information; the rights of third parties must be respected.

- Will it contribute to the "regeneration" of television content?

Hopefully yes, but this is to recognize that a sentence of limited scope has a therapeutic effect that is perhaps excessive. In any case, we must remember that the interpretation of the Constitutional Court must be followed by all judges and courts.

- Hidden cameras, do they really represent an attack on privacy? The shortcoming is perhaps that their use is not sufficiently regulated?

The hidden camera starts from a deception, as happens with the obtaining of information with the simulation of a false identity, because it allows the intrusion into the sphere of a subject without his consent. Whoever uses the camera surreptitiously does so fraudulently, creating a false status in the interviewee and can not rely on the exercise of a freedom, especially when it restricts, as in this case, the rights to privacy and self-image of another person. I do not believe that there is a problem of regulation, but a problem of respect for the limits of the media, which, on the other hand, the courts have pointed out in numerous pronouncements. Now the Constitutional Court confirms the judgment of the Supreme Court in which it had already stated that the use of hidden cameras violated the rights to privacy and self-image.