OQ4011 135. It is clear from the pleadings before this Court that, following a statement dated 27 December 2016, the Attorney General of the Cotonou Court of Appeal appealed the Judgment No. 262/1 FD-16 of 4 November 2016 delivered by the First Instance Court of Cotonou, but without getting the appeal registered in that Court's Register of Appeals and without notification thereof to the Respondent, in this case, the Applicant. 136. The Court notes that in all judicial proceedings, and even more so in criminal matters, the launch of a procedure is actualized by notification thereof to the adverse party. It is by such action of notification that a fact, an act or a procedure is brought to the knowledge of the person concerned . Notification is of crucial importance in the procedure especially as it "alerts" the addressee who therefrom sees himself concerned by the procedure and offers him the opportunity to participate therein". In view of international jurisprudence, the Court considers that it is "the official notification, issued by the competent authority levelling an accusation of committal of a criminal offence" which constitutes the accusation and triggers the criminal action". 137. In the instant case , notification of the appeal against the Judgment of 4 November 2016 was essential and was supposed to be the starting point for the Appellant's bid to have the case reopened. Notification is not just an act of information; it produces legal effects. The absence of notification of the appeal to the Applicant renders the Attorney General's appeal ineffective, and the Court has already established that an effective remedy is one that produces the desired effecfo. 138. The Court notes, moreover, that since 26 December 2016 up to the referral to CRIET in September 2018, the Attorney General's appeal was never invoked before the Cotonou Court of Appeal and no procedural act was accomplished thereon. The Attorney General did not attempt to forward the appeal for inclusion in the register of appeals at the Registry of the First Instance Court of Cotonou; Georg Brozicek v. Italy, Judgment of 19/121989, op.cit. §§ 57 and 58 Idem § 38 20 Aktivar and Others v. Turkey Judgment, op cit. § 73 18 19 I ~~ ~-