JUDGMENT OF 15. 9. 2015 — CASE C-67/14 ALIMANOVIC 41 42 By its second and third questions, the referring court asks the Court as to, in essence, the compatibility, first, with Article  24(2) of Directive 2004/38 and, secondly, with Articles  18 TFEU and  45(2) TFEU, of national legislation which excludes from entitlement to certain benefits nationals of other Member States who have the status of job-seekers, whereas those benefits are guaranteed to the nationals of the Member State concerned who are in the same situation. Since the issue of whether the benefits at issue constitute ‘social assistance’ or measures intended to facilitate access to the labour market is determinative for the purposes of identifying the EU rule under which that compatibility falls to be assessed, it is necessary to classify them. 43 In this connection, it is sufficient to note that the referring court has itself characterised the benefits at issue as ‘special non-contributory cash benefits’ within the meaning of Article  70(2) of Regulation No  883/2004. It states in that regard that those benefits are intended to cover subsistence costs for persons who cannot cover those costs themselves and that they are not financed through contributions, but through tax revenue. Since those benefits are moreover mentioned in Annex  X to Regulation No  883/2004, they meet the conditions in Article  70(2) thereof, even if they form part of a scheme which also provides for benefits to facilitate the search for employment. 44 That said, it should be added that, as is apparent from the Court’s case-law, such benefits are also covered by the concept of ‘social assistance’ within the meaning of Article  24(2) of Directive 2004/38. That concept refers to all assistance schemes established by the public authorities, whether at national, regional or local level, to which recourse may be had by an individual who does not have resources sufficient to meet his own basic needs and those of his family and who by reason of that fact may, during his period of residence, become a burden on the public finances of the host Member State which could have consequences for the overall level of assistance which may be granted by that State (judgment in Dano, C-333/13, EU:C:2014:2358, paragraph  63). 45 However, in the present case it must be found that, as the Advocate General observed in point  72 of his Opinion, the predominant function of the benefits at issue in the main proceedings is in fact to cover the minimum subsistence costs necessary to lead a life in keeping with human dignity. 46 It follows from those considerations that those benefits cannot be characterised as benefits of a financial nature which are intended to facilitate access to the labour market of a Member State (see, to that effect, judgment in Vatsouras and Koupatantze, C-22/08 and  C-23/08, EU:C:2009:344, paragraph  45) but, as the Advocate General observed in points  66 to  71 of his Opinion, must be regarded as ‘social assistance’ within the meaning of Article  24(2) of Directive 2004/38. 47 Consequently, there is no need to answer the third question referred. The second question 48 By its second question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article  24 of Directive 2004/38 and Article  4 of Regulation No  883/2004 must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which nationals of other Member States who are job-seekers in the host Member State are excluded from entitlement to certain ‘special non-contributory cash benefits’ within the meaning of Article  70(2) of Regulation No  883/2004, which also constitute ‘social assistance’ within the meaning of Article  24(2) of Directive 2004/38, although those benefits are granted to nationals of the Member State concerned who are in the same situation. 12 ECLI:EU:C:2015:597