JUDGMENT OF 15. 9. 2015 — CASE C-67/14 ALIMANOVIC assistance is concerned, it must nevertheless be observed that, in such a case, the host Member State may rely on the derogation in Article  24(2) of that directive in order not to grant that citizen the social assistance sought. 58 It follows from the express reference in Article  24(2) of Directive 2004/38 to Article  14(4)(b) thereof that the host Member State may refuse to grant any social assistance to a Union citizen whose right of residence is based solely on that latter provision. 59 It must be stated in this connection that, although the Court has held that Directive 2004/38 requires a Member State to take account of the individual situation of the person concerned before it adopts an expulsion measure or finds that the residence of that person is placing an unreasonable burden on its social assistance system (judgment in Brey, C-140/12, EU:C:2013:565, paragraphs  64, 69 and  78), no such individual assessment is necessary in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings. 60 Directive 2004/38, establishing a gradual system as regards the retention of the status of ‘worker’ which seeks to safeguard the right of residence and access to social assistance, itself takes into consideration various factors characterising the individual situation of each applicant for social assistance and, in particular, the duration of the exercise of any economic activity. 61 By enabling those concerned to know, without any ambiguity, what their rights and obligations are, the criterion referred to both in Paragraph  7(1) of Book II, read in conjunction with Paragraph  2(3) of the Law on freedom of movement, and in Article  7(3)(c) of Directive 2004/38, namely a period of six months after the cessation of employment during which the right to social assistance is retained, is consequently such as to guarantee a significant level of legal certainty and transparency in the context of the award of social assistance by way of basic provision, while complying with the principle of proportionality. 62 Moreover, as regards the individual assessment for the purposes of making an overall appraisal of the burden which the grant of a specific benefit would place on the national system of social assistance at issue in the main proceedings as a whole, it must be observed that the assistance awarded to a single applicant can scarcely be described as an ‘unreasonable burden’ for a Member State, within the meaning of Article  14(1) of Directive 2004/38. However, while an individual claim might not place the Member State concerned under an unreasonable burden, the accumulation of all the individual claims which would be submitted to it would be bound to do so. 63 Having regard to all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the second question is that Article  24 of Directive 2004/38 and Article  4 of Regulation No  883/2004 must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State under which nationals of other Member States who are in a situation such as that referred to in Article  14(4)(b) of that directive 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. Costs 64 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable. 14 ECLI:EU:C:2015:597