Illustration generated with artificial intelligence
On 22 May, the Administrative Court in Gabrovo overturned a decision by the Agency for the Quality of Social Services (AQSS) refusing to renew the licence of Dara 13, a company from the village of Yavorets that has for years operated in practice as a residential care facility for elderly people, while officially providing the social service “assisted support”.
The case was brought by the company, challenging an order issued by the AQSS executive director refusing to renew its licence, which expired at the end of March this year.
The line between a home and a care facility
Before the court, the state, through the AQSS, argued that the facility in Yavorets was in fact providing “residential care” – a service similar to a care home, but operating under a licence for hourly assistance in a home environment, which is how “assisted support” is regulated.
The agency pointed out that the facility provided round-the-clock care, residents shared common areas and were looked after by staff working in shifts rather than by individual carers, as required for “assisted support”.
The court, however, reached the opposite conclusion. It found that the people living there did so voluntarily, had tenancy agreements, were free to communicate with relatives and received individual support.
According to the judges, a “home environment” does not necessarily mean a person’s own house or flat, but rather a place where they live by choice.
That may sound logical, but one important detail appears to have been overlooked: a significant proportion of the people at the facility are not there entirely by their own choice, but at the decision of relatives who are unable to provide the care they need at home.
The court’s ruling itself notes that there are seriously ill residents in Yavorets, including people who are immobile or bedridden.
Communal living and 24-hour care
During an inspection in March 2026, launched in connection with the application to renew the facility’s licence for “assisted support”, AQSS inspectors found elderly residents and people suffering from various illnesses, some of them serious. They were accommodated two to a room.
Those who were mobile ate in a common dining room, were looked after by staff working in shifts and had access to round-the-clock assistance.
The court ruling even quotes the company’s own promotional material:
“In specially designated premises for elderly people and people with disabilities, 24-hour care is provided by highly qualified professionals.”
In this context, the court acknowledged something that was essentially undisputed:
“The place where the users of the service are accommodated is, in practice, advertised, serviced and functions as a home for elderly people.”
The judges nevertheless found that this was not sufficient grounds to refuse to renew the licence for “assisted support”.
AQSS: this is residential care
According to the AQSS, over the years “assisted support” at the facility had been expanded to the point where it had effectively become residential care – in other words, a care home.
Social workers worked 12-hour shifts, residents were served collectively and “did not identify specific assistants”.
At the time of the agency’s latest inspection, 34 people had been identified at the facility, seven of whom did not meet the requirements for “assisted support”. During the court proceedings, however, the state body did not provide evidence sufficient to substantiate that claim.
According to the agency, this was not hourly assistance in a home environment, but an institutional model operating under another name.
The court: more care does not mean a violation
The court did not accept that the model had moved outside the scope of “assisted support”. Instead, it concluded that the residents were receiving “more care” than the minimum required.
The ruling states explicitly:
“The fact that the applicant provides ‘assisted support’ in a volume and manner exceeding the minimum requirements cannot be a reason to refuse the requested licence.”
The judges also accepted that the residents lived there voluntarily under tenancy agreements.
The arrangement, which came under public scrutiny following the so-called “house of horrors” case in the village of Yagoda and apparently continues to operate, has in this case also received judicial backing.
The residents can be visited freely, are not isolated or placed under a restrictive regime, and can eat when they choose and use the facilities and premises as they see fit, the court says.
“Home environment” does not mean owning the property
A key element of the ruling is the court’s interpretation of the term “home environment”.
The court explicitly rejected the argument that this necessarily means a person’s own apartment or house. It concluded that a home is the place where a person lives, which may be their own property but may also be accommodation they have borrowed or rented, as in this case, because tenancy agreements have been signed with the users.
The court also found that “assisted support” cannot be refused simply because two people share a bedroom.
“This is a matter of choice – even in their own home or in the home of relatives, people may share a room with another person, and that does not make the environment any more or less of a home, nor does it mean that the social service should be refused on that basis,” the ruling states.
In short, according to the court, the elderly people in Yavorets are receiving “assisted support in a home environment” because although they may be living in rented accommodation, that rented property is their home for the time being.
The broader question left hanging outside the court’s conclusion is where “home environment” ends and an institution begins when dozens of people live together in an organised facility with round-the-clock staff, communal meals and a shared daily regime.
Heavy criticism of the state agency
The ruling does not fully endorse the model operating in Yavorets, which is not unique in Bulgaria but part of an established practice.
Instead, it strongly criticises the work of the state Agency for the Quality of Social Services.
According to the ruling, the agency had known for years how the system operated, and was aware of the situation in Yavorets in particular. It had carried out repeated on-site inspections, yet had imposed no sanctions and taken no other decisive measures.
Instead, it regularly issued instructions and later checked whether they had been complied with.
Whenever inspectors found that the instructions had only been partially implemented or had not been followed, another inspection report was produced.
The agency only took decisive action when the licence for the service it had established was not actually being provided was about to expire, according to the court ruling.
Refusing a licence or refusing care?
The court found that refusing to renew the licence created “a real risk of interruption of the social service provided”, which would conflict with the fundamental principles of continuity and sustainability.
It also noted that there had been no assessment of the consequences of discontinuing the service for its users. Nor had alternative options been identified to which the residents could be referred, and there was no evidence that such alternatives had sufficient capacity.
The Administrative Court in Gabrovo did not answer the central question of whether a care home for elderly people is actually operating in Yavorets under a different legal designation.
Even if that is the case, the ruling focuses on the fact that the state failed to establish the alleged violations with the evidence required by law, while appearing to set aside years of inspection findings indicating that residential care for elderly people was being provided in Yavorets rather than hourly assisted support.
The case therefore does not end with a definitive answer as to whether the model itself is lawful.
Instead, it ends with the troubling conclusion that the state had observed, accepted and repeatedly inspected the arrangement for years without stopping it – and when it eventually attempted to declare it unlawful, it failed to support its case with sufficient evidence.
The ruling makes no substantive assessment of the evidence accumulated during those years of inspections, which had repeatedly identified what appeared in practice to be residential care for elderly people rather than hourly assistance in a home environment.
The decision can be appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court.
“We will appeal and use all administrative remedies provided by law and all the evidence at our disposal to prove that our position is correct,” Victoria Takhova, executive director of the Agency for the Quality of Social Services, told “Za Istinata”.
