One of the disadvantages is the independent liability incurred in connection with their independent activity. Is there a way to protect themselves?
There is a specific regulation that allows independent protect their primary residence against seizure that could be practiced by creditors. Concretely, this means that no entry can be performed on the property where the independent has his main residence. By residence means the place where independent lives alone or with his family. This is the factual situation determines.

Who can benefit from this regulation?
This protection is available to any independent person naturally. So for anyone who has a professional activity in Belgium without being bound by an employment contract or a certain status. Concretely are: traders, artisans and members of the liberal profession. Administrators and managers can also benefit from this protection for business debts in the exercise of their independent activity directors or managers.

Once it does qualify, what should actually independent for any input can be executed on his home?
He must establish a deed in which he made such a statement from seizure. In this act, the notary will take a detailed description of the residence (home). If self is married, the husband or wife is involved in this act.

What happens when the independent uses his home to his job? In this case, it can still enjoy such protection?
In case of mixed use accommodation - a private party and a professional part - it must be made clear in the act the private party and the professional part. A distinction must be made:

if the professional area covers less than 30%: all property is elusive;
if the professional area covers 30% or more, only the private party may be declared elusive, and not the part devoted to the work. In this case, the notary must first establish statutes condominium in which this separation is legally established. If the respective areas are not obvious, it may be appealed to a surveyor.
Once the independent made this statement, against which it can be argued that protection?
This applies only to the claims of debt resulting from the occupation of the independent (ie not for private debt), which were acquired after this statement. In any case, it can never be used this protection to debts resulting from an offense, even if it is related to the work and not for debt (private and professional) mixed character .