Each jury consists of nine members who are in no way associated with the sites and is made up as follows:
- one government representative or one from a supervisory authority;
- two client representatives, one of whom is, a representative of a town not involved in the competition;
- four architects;
- two personalities.
At least three of these nine members must be foreigners, of which at least two must be architects. The national structure also appoints at least two substitute jury members, of which at least one must be an architect.
The juries are approved by the EUROPAN Executive committee.
 

In addition, one foreign delegate appointed by the European secretariat will attend the proceedings of each jury as an expert-observer. He or she makes clear to the jury the thematic elements of the competition and ensures that the common rules are applied.
 

Jury members may consult representatives of the towns participating in the competition, but on no account may town representatives participate when the jury is deliberating.
 

Membership of the jury is made public when the competition is launched. Details are found in the country annexes to these rules.

How the juries operate
Jury’s decisions are final, in accordance with the EUROPAN rules.
 

The jury meets in two distinct sessions at different times. During the first session, it examines the conformity of the projects in relation to the session themes, and shortlists a maximum of twenty per cent of the projects entered, for the quality of their ideas. During the second session, it examines the short-listed projects in terms of their innovative qualities and suitability to the context into which they are inserted, and chooses the winners, runners-up and highly commended.
 

At the beginning of the first session, each jury appoints a chairman from among its members and adopts its working method.
Entries are judged on the basis of how well they apply the criteria defined in the EUROPAN 8 theme. Each entry is judged on its merits alone and prize-winners are not chosen on the basis of any equal distribution among the sites.
Following this deliberation procedure, the jury designates: the winning projects, without classifying them in any order; and the runners-up, in order.
 

If the quality of projects permits, the jury may decide to replace any prize-winning projects which could be disqualified subsequent to verification of the validity of the participation in the competition by the European secretariat.
In this case, it designates substitute entries and ranks them in order.
Should a winning entry be disqualified, it is replaced by the highest-ranking runner-up. The highest-ranking substitute entry then moves to the lowest rank among the runners-up. The same procedure is followed if several winning projects are disqualified.
Should a runner-up entry be disqualified, it is replaced by the highest-ranking substitute moving to the lowest rank among the runners-up, and so on. The same procedure is followed if several runners-up are disqualified.
The ranking of runners-up and substitute entries is purely technical and optional, and is not made public once the verifications are over.
 

Each country retains in its budget the equivalent, for each site, of a Winner prize and a Runner-up prize. The jury may decide not to award all the prizes it is entitled to award,. In this case, the reasons for this decision will be made public.
 

The jury may single out projects for special mention.
The authors of projects thus highly commended receive no prizes. These projects are published and exhibited at the national level, but not at the European level.

Evaluation criteria
Before beginning its work, the jury has made available to it the recommendations made by the European Association.
 

First, the jury must review the projects that do not comply with the instructions and decide to disqualify or not, the candidate(s) concerned. Under no circumstances may the jury examine any extra documents not provided for in these rules.
 

During the first judging session, the jury evaluates entries according to:
- their conceptual content,
- their contribution in terms of innovation in relation to the general problematic of EUROPAN, to European urbanity, and to the themes by families of sites.

During the second judging session, the jury examines the entries in terms of the following criteria:
- the relationship between site and concept ;
- the relevance of their programme to the general brief for the site they address;
- their potential for integration into a complex urban process
- their architectural qualities;
- the relevance of solutions proposed in relation to the social issues raised;
- the innovative aspects of the spaces proposed;
- the consideration given to the relationship between housing and other functions;
- their social and economic validity;
- their technical qualities.
 

The jury draws up and publishes a report which provides a résumé of the discussions and explains the criteria of choice of the winning entries.