A request has been made to the EFTA Court, dated 7 November 2025, from the Princely Supreme Court (Fürstlicher Oberster Gerichtshof), which was received at the Court Registry on 18 November 2025, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Sabine Mohr-Egger v Liechtensteinische Alters- und Hinterlassenen-versicherung, Liechtensteinische Invalidenversicherung und Liechtensteinische Familienausgleichskasse (Liechtenstein Old-Age and Survivors’ Insurance, Liechtenstein Invalidity Insurance and Liechtenstein Family Allowances Office), on the following questions:

First question:

Must Article 14(5b) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 as amended by Regulation (EU) No 465/2012, according to which marginal activities shall be disregarded for the purposes of determining the applicable legislation under Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (the basic Regulation), be interpreted as meaning that already the fact that the income from a political activity pursued in the State of residence, which according to national legislation corresponds to that of a civil servant and thus an employed person, amounts to less than 0,5 % of the income that the corresponding insured person receives from an activity as a self-employed person in another Member State suffices in this connection to speak of a marginal activity or must further criteria be taken into consideration, for example, the duration of the activity as an employed person, on the one hand, and the self-employed activity, on the other, the importance of the activity as an employed person, pursued wholly independently of the activity as a self-employed person, for the political community of the State of residence as well as the place of performance of the activity as an employed person, the actual pursuit thereof or the manner of performance prescribed as a result of the appointment to a political function or are further additional criteria to be taken into consideration, and if so, which?

Second question:

In the event that it is not sufficiently clarified through the answer to the first question whether the relevant activity as an employed person must be qualified as marginal, the question is asked whether, having regard to recitals 1, 5, 10, 12, 15 and 17 in conjunction with Article 13(4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, Article 34(1)(b) and (2)(b) of the Act of 14 December 1952 on Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (AHVG) must be interpreted as meaning that the insured person who receives an old-age pension in the Member State of residence as a result of her activity as a self-employed person previously pursued in that State must be subject nonetheless to compulsory social insurance in the Member State in which the activity as a self-employed person is still pursued.