In practice, substantial amounts are often transferred between relatives, friends, or acquaintances without a written loan agreement or a clearly defined repayment date. The dispute begins when personal trust is no longer accompanied by a willingness to repay.
The legal question is not limited to whether money passed from one person to another. The purpose of the transfer must be established: a loan, gift, investment, advance payment, contribution to a joint activity, or another legal relationship. The court determines the legal characterisation from the facts and evidence.
What must the lender prove?
“A party asserting a right must prove the facts on which that claim is based.” — Article 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Article 1050 of the Albanian Civil Code defines a loan as a relationship in which the borrower receives ownership of a sum of money and is required to return the same quantity within the agreed period or, where no period was fixed, upon the lender’s request.
Under Article 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a party asserting a right must prove the facts on which the claim is based. The lender must therefore establish delivery of the money, its purpose as a loan, the duty to repay, the relevant due date, and the outstanding balance.
What evidence may be used without a contract?
The absence of a contract does not necessarily mean that no evidence exists. Bank transfers, payment descriptions, complete message threads, promises to repay, requests for additional time, partial payments, and acknowledgements of debt may form a coherent evidential picture.
A bank transfer proves the movement of money but does not always prove its legal purpose. The recipient may allege a gift, an investment, or repayment of another obligation. The evidence must therefore be assessed together and in context.
Articles 231–233 of the Code of Civil Procedure govern the limits of witness evidence and the circumstances in which it may be admitted, including the existence of preliminary written evidence or circumstances in which obtaining a written document was not possible.
- Full bank statements and transfer records
- Messages acknowledging the amount or promising repayment
- Requests for extensions or instalment proposals
- Partial payments and their descriptions
- Documents or statements originating from the recipient
- First-hand witnesses where their evidence is admissible
Written demand and default
Where no repayment date was fixed, the lender’s demand is particularly important under Article 1050. It should identify the parties, the original and outstanding amounts, the date and method of transfer, a definite payment period, and the method of payment.
Article 481 of the Civil Code generally provides for placing the debtor in default by written notice. The notice should be delivered in a manner that can later be proved. Where the debtor acknowledges the debt, a clear written or instalment agreement may prevent further uncertainty.
Limitation periods must not be ignored
Article 114 of the Civil Code establishes a general ten-year limitation period unless another period applies. Its commencement and any interruption must nevertheless be assessed in each matter.
Articles 117–118 address the commencement of limitation for obligations with and without a repayment date. Article 131 identifies events that may interrupt limitation, including a full acknowledgement of the right, placing the debtor in default, filing a claim, and seeking enforcement.
Proceedings, interim protection, and enforcement
Where no enforceable title exists, recovery will ordinarily require civil proceedings. A claim is generally filed in the court of the defendant’s residence and should clearly set out the facts, evidence, and relief sought.
Where enforcement of a future judgment risks becoming impossible or difficult, interim protection may be considered under Articles 202–206 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such relief is not automatic: it requires a specific risk, documentary support, and potentially a guarantee.
Article 510(d) recognises notarial instruments containing monetary obligations as enforceable titles. The Supreme Court has also clarified that an enforcement order based on a notarised loan does not prevent the debtor from challenging the validity of the transaction or the enforceability of the title through the appropriate remedies.
Non-payment is not automatically fraud
A refusal or inability to repay a loan is ordinarily a civil dispute. Criminal liability cannot be inferred solely from non-payment; separate facts must establish deceitful conduct and the statutory elements of a criminal offence.
Threats, taking property by force, or publicly exposing the debtor are not lawful debt-recovery methods. The claim must be pursued through notice, agreement, judicial proceedings, and enforcement.
Conclusion
Personal trust may explain why no written agreement was prepared, but litigation turns on provable facts. Delivery of the funds, the purpose of the payment, communications, the due date, acknowledgement, and partial repayments must be assessed together. The absence of a contract does not automatically defeat a claim, but it requires a more careful evidential strategy.
Updated on 1 September 2026. This article provides general information and does not constitute legal advice for a specific matter.