The aim of this principle is to safeguard the procedural parts against surprise decisions and to give them an effective opportunity to actively influence the development and success of the process. A breach of the adversarial principle results in a procedural nullity if it is capable of influencing decisively the decision of the case. Pursuant to Article 33 of the Rules of Procedure, the application initiating proceedings contains the offered evidences, in this case, the mentioned documents. Accordingly, we believe that, if the documentary evidence attached to the application initiating proceedings were not delivered to the defendant, that constitutes a mere irregularity, liable of being remedied, since those documents were lodged at the Registry of this Court, thus accessible to the defendant, that could have requested or consulted them. Moreover, such an irregularity did not hinder the defense of the defendant, since the defendant did not plead in that regard, having lodged its defense within the legal deadline, challenging the facts claimed by the applicant. In this sense, we understand that it is without ground the demand of the defendant that the court rejects the documents offered with the application initiating proceedings, as evidence, because in the act of the citation they were not sent to him, when he could have raised an incident of nullity of the citation, requiring the repetition of the act. In fact, it is what he came to do at the court hearing held on March 5th, 2019, when he requested the translation of the aforementioned documents, which was done and permitted him to present the rejoinder, as found in the document (5) . Therefore, this claim of the defendant is also dismissed. ON THE APPLICANT'S DEMANDS: c) On the claimed infringement of the right to free movement of persons, goods and services The applicant claimed that due to the fact that the defendant prevented his three lorries carrying fish from entering the defendant´s territory by closing its border, it violated 14