2. Member States may provide that the competences of the bodies referred to in Article 4 of this Directive for the promotion, analysis, monitoring and support of equal treatment of Union workers and members of their family without discrimination on grounds of nationality also cover the right to equal treatment without discrimination on grounds of nationality of all Union citizens exercising their right to free movement and the members of their family, in accordance with Article 21 TFEU and Directive 2004/38/EC.

7. Notes that the Spanish authorities inform that in their assessment based on the experience with previous EGF applications, only 300 of the workers targeted for the EGF support will choose to participate in the measures; calls on the Spanish authorities to use the EGF support to its full potential, in particular for upskilling the workers with basic education, who make up 74,4% of targeted workers;

6. Notes that the Spanish authorities inform that in their assessment based on the experience with previous EGF applications, only 300 of the workers targeted for the EGF support will choose to participate in the measures; calls on the Spanish authorities to use the EGF support to its full potential, in particular for upskilling the workers with basic education, who make up 74,4% of targeted workers;

3. An alert may also be entered when the decision referred to in paragraph 1 is based on the fact that the third-country national has been subject to a measure involving expulsion, refusal of entry or removal which has not been rescinded or suspended, that includes or is accompanied by a prohibition on entry or, where applicable, a prohibition on residence, based on a failure to comply with national regulations on the entry or residence of third-country nationals.

3. An alert may also be entered when the decision referred to in paragraph 1 is based on the fact that the third-country national has been subject to a measure involving expulsion, refusal of entry or removal which has not been rescinded or suspended, that includes or is accompanied by a prohibition on entry or, where applicable, a prohibition on residence, based on a failure to comply with national regulations on the entry or residence of third-country nationals.

In support of that analysis, the appellant relies on Article 142a(2) of Regulation No 40/94, introduced by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic to the European Union and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 2003 L 236, p. 33) (‘the Act of Accession’), which provides: ‘[t]he registration of a Community trade mark which is under application at the date ...[+++]of accession may not be refused on the basis of any of the absolute grounds for refusal listed in Article 7(1) [of Regulation No 40/94], if these grounds became applicable merely because of the accession of a new Member State’.