JUDGMENT OF 15. 9. 2015 — CASE C-67/14 ALIMANOVIC 35 Ms Alimanovic and her daughter Sonita, among others, were thus precluded from claiming subsistence allowances for the long-term unemployed on the basis of Paragraph  7(1), second sentence, point  2, of Book II, which excludes both persons whose right of residence arises solely out of the search for employment and their family members from entitlement to the benefits provided for by that legislation. 36 The referring court therefore, first, raises the issue of whether that provision of Book II breaches the principle of equal treatment laid down in Article  4 of Regulation No  883/2004. 37 Secondly, that court raises the issue of whether that provision of Book II may be regarded as a valid transposition of Article  24(2) of Directive 2004/38 into domestic law or, should that latter provision be held inapplicable, whether it infringes Article  45(2) TFEU, read in conjunction with Article  18 TFEU. 38 In those circumstances, the Bundessozialgericht (Federal Social Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Does the principle of equal treatment under Article  4 of Regulation [No  883/2004]  — with the exception of the clause in Article  70(4) [thereof] excluding the provision of benefits outside the Member State of residence  — apply also to the special non-contributory cash benefits referred to in Article  70(1) and  (2) of Regulation [No  883/2004]? (2) If the first question is answered in the affirmative: may the principle of equal treatment laid down in Article  4 of Regulation [No  883/2004] be limited by provisions of national legislation implementing Article  24(2) of Directive 2004/38 that do not in any circumstances allow access to those benefits in the case in which the right of residence of the citizen of the Union in another Member State arises solely out of the search for employment and, if so, to what extent may that principle be so limited? (3) Does Article  45(2) TFEU, [read] in conjunction with Article  18 TFEU, preclude a provision of national law that does not in any circumstances allow the grant of a social benefit, intended to ensure subsistence and to facilitate access to the labour market, to citizens of the Union who, as job-seekers, may invoke the exercise of their right of free movement when they enjoy a right of residence arising solely out of the search for employment, irrespective of a link to the host Member State?’ 39 By letter of 26  November 2014, the Court Registry sent the referring court the judgment in Dano (C-333/13, EU:C:2014:2358), requesting it to inform it whether, in the light of the first point in the operative part of that judgment, it still wished to refer the first question in the order for reference. By order of 11  February 2015, received at the Court Registry on 19  February 2015, the Federal Social Court decided that it would withdraw the first question referred. Consideration of the questions referred The classification of the benefits at issue 40 The file submitted to the Court states that the referring court is of the view that the rights of residence held by Ms  Alimanovic and her daughter Sonita arise solely out of their status as job-seekers and that it is bound by the findings of fact made by the court of first instance in that regard. ECLI:EU:C:2015:597 11