Jury membership
Each country sets up a jury. Its members are appointed by the national structure and approved by the Council of Europan European Association.
The jury considers all projects that comply with the competition rules.  Its judgement is final. In the event of non-compliance with the rules, it has discretion whether or not to disqualify the entrant in question. Under no circumstances will the jury consider additional documents or models.

Each jury consists of nine members who are in no way associated with the sites and is constituted as follows:
- one representative of the government or of a supervisory authority,
- two client representatives, one of whom represents a city not involved in the competition, who may or may not be chosen by representatives of participating sites.
- four architects,
- two public figures.

Of these nine members, at least three must be foreign, including at least two architects. The national structure also appoints at least two replacement jury members, at least one of them an architect.

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

Jury members may consult representatives of the cities involved in the competition, but on no account may city representatives have voting rights.
                                         
The jury members are identified when the competition is launched, and their names are listed for each country on the European website.

How the juries work
Jury decisions are final in accordance with Europan rules.

The jury meets in two separate sessions at different times.
At the first session, it shortlists a maximum of twenty per cent of the projects entered. At the second session, it examines all projects and chooses the winners, runners-up and entries for honorable mention.

At the beginning of the first session, the jury appoints one of its members as chairman and agrees on its workings.          
Each entry is judged on its merits alone and the winning teams are not chosen on the basis of an equal division between sites.
At the end of the deliberation procedure, the jury designates the winning projects without any ranking system, whilst the runners-up are assigned a ranking.

If the quality of projects permits, the jury may decide to designate entries to replace any prizewinning projects which might be disqualified when the European secretariat has checked the validity of their participation in the competition.
In this case, it identifies substitute entries and ranks them in order.
Should a winning entry be disqualified, it is replaced by the highest-ranked runner-up. The highest-ranked substitute entry then moves to the lowest runner-up position. The same procedure is repeated if several winning projects are disqualified.
If a runner-up entry is disqualified, it is replaced by the highest-ranked substitute moving to the lowest runner-up position, and so on. The same procedure is repeated if several runner-up projects are disqualified.
The ranking of runners-up and substitute entries is purely technical and optional. It is not made public once verification is completed.

Each country retains in its budget the equivalent, for each site, of a Winner’s prize and a Runner-Up prize.
The jury can decide not to award all the prizes.  In this case, the reasons will be made public.

The jury may single out projects for honorable mention.
The authors of projects that are given an honorable mention do not receive a prize. These projects are published and exhibited within the country but not at European level.

Evaluation criteria
Before beginning its work, the jury receives recommendations from the European Association.
First, the jury must review projects that do not comply with the rules and decide whether or not to disqualify the entrant(s) concerned.  Under no circumstances can the jury consider additional documents.

During its first session, the jury assesses projects on the basis of:
- their conceptual content,
- the degree of innovation with which they address the overarching Europan theme, European urbanity.

During its second session, the jury assesses projects on the basis of:
- the relationship between concept and site;
- their relevance to the questions raised by the topic;
- the relevance of their programme to the general brief for the site they relate to;
- their potential for integration into a complex urban process;
- their architectural qualities;
- the innovative nature of the proposed public spaces;
- the consideration given to the connection between housing and other functions;
- their socio-economic viability;
- their technical qualities;

The jury draws up and publishes a report summarizing their deliberations and explaining the criteria applied in the choice of the winning entries.