JUDGMENT OF 15. 9. 2015 — CASE C-67/14 ALIMANOVIC 49 It must first be recalled in this connection that, so far as concerns access to social assistance, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, a Union citizen can claim equal treatment with nationals of the host Member State under Article  24(1) of Directive 2004/38 only if his residence in the territory of the host Member State complies with the conditions of Directive 2004/38 (judgment in Dano, C-333/13, EU:C:2014:2358, paragraph  69). 50 To accept that persons who do not have a right of residence under Directive 2004/38 may claim entitlement to social assistance under the same conditions as those applicable to nationals of the host Member State would run counter to an objective of the directive, set out in recital 10 in its preamble, namely preventing Union citizens who are nationals of other Member States from becoming an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State (judgment in Dano, C-333/13, EU:C:2014:2358, paragraph  74). 51 In order to determine whether social assistance, such as the benefits at issue in the main proceedings, may be refused on the basis of the derogation laid down in Article  24(2) of Directive 2004/38, it is therefore necessary to determine beforehand whether the principle of equal treatment referred to in Article  24(1) of that directive is applicable and, accordingly, whether the Union citizen concerned is lawfully resident on the territory of the host Member State. 52 Only two provisions of Directive 2004/38 may confer on job-seekers in the situation of Ms  Alimanovic and her daughter Sonita a right of residence in the host Member State under that directive, namely Article  7(3)(c) and Article  14(4)(b) thereof. 53 In this connection, Article  7(3)(c) of Directive 2004/38 provides that if the worker is in duly recorded involuntary unemployment after completing a fixed-term employment contract of less than a year or after having become involuntarily unemployed during the first 12 months and has registered as a jobseeker with the relevant employment office, he retains the status of worker for no less than six months. During that period, the Union citizen concerned retains his right of residence in the host Member State under Article  7 of Directive 2004/38 and may, consequently, rely on the principle of equal treatment, laid down in Article  24(1) of that directive. 54 The Court thus held, in the judgment in Vatsouras and Koupatantze (C-22/08 and  C-23/08, EU:C:2009:344, paragraph  32), that Union citizens who have retained the status of workers on the basis of Article  7(3)(c) of Directive 2004/38 have the right to social assistance, such as the benefits at issue, during that period of at least six months. 55 However, as the Advocate General observes in point  41 of his Opinion, it is not disputed that Ms  Alimanovic and her daughter Sonita, who retained the status of workers for at least six months after their last employment had ended, no longer enjoyed that status when they were refused entitlement to the benefits at issue. 56 As regards the question whether a right of residence under Directive 2004/38 might be established on the basis of Article  14(4)(b) thereof for Union citizens in the situation of Ms  Alimanovic and her daughter Sonita, that provision stipulates that Union citizens who have entered the territory of the host Member State in order to seek employment may not be expelled for as long as they can provide evidence that they are continuing to seek employment and that they have a genuine chance of being engaged. 57 Although, according to the referring court, Ms  Alimanovic and her daughter Sonita may rely on that provision to establish a right of residence even after the expiry of the period referred to in Article  7(3)(c) of Directive 2004/38, for a period, covered by Article  14(4)(b) thereof, which entitles them to equal treatment with the nationals of the host Member State so far as access to social ECLI:EU:C:2015:597 13