"Eure.K has set itself the aim of producing a recommendation document based on experience developed during the course of the project on the procedures applied for recognizing, validating and certifying European key competences in the field of vocational training and adult education.Initiated in 2016, Eure.K thus conducted its studies concurrently with the development of the 2016 European Parliament and Council Recommendation revision that provides a Reference Framework on Key Competences for Lifelong Learning. The recommendation revision resulted in the new Recommendation of 22 May 2018 which advocates in particular “further developing the assessment and validation of key competences acquired in different settings (…)” (see § 3.3 of the recommendation) by an application of best practices. The Recommendation specifies in its annex that “different approaches to assessment of key competences in non-formal and informal contexts could be developed” (see Annex, C,c). The Eure.K project thus anticipated the new recommendation by providing the first contribution to the sharing of practices called for by the European Council. The Eure.K project has involved university professors and researchers (Lisbon and Algarve; Padua, Italy; Le Cnam, France), training organizations and networks (APap in France, Le Forem in Belgium), business training resource centre organizations (Politecnico Calzaturiero, Italy) and knowledge dissemination institutions (Istituto Sturzo). Each partner was involved in the development and analysis of one of these practices. Partners were also involved within the Steering Committee in a general reflection: the Committee thus operated as a collective player, members of the committee being collectively responsible for specific projects led by their colleagues. The diversity of member profiles within the Steering Committee was therefore a source of enrichment and a significant asset. The committee first examined the use of the European Reference Framework by actors and institutions working in the field of vocational and adult education. The framework cannot and should not be applied “mechanically”. On the contrary, starting from the actual context of actors and institutions, from the purposes they pursue and from the target audiences involved is necessary to understand the use of the reference Framework, even if this means amending it to fit the context.This is what the project undertook by conducting 10 “action-research” studies.Each partner within the consortium was involved in the implementation of schemes in the 4 countries represented in the project so as to give an account, taking their own specificities into consideration, of the use of the Reference Framework. Target groups varied from people with low levels of education but with a significant life experience to doctoral students. Implementation contexts were diverse, varying from the field of social inclusion to company or professional development contexts as well as formal training. Objectives of the schemes could be the empowerment of individuals through self-recognition of prior experience, employability, professional qualification or simply assigning a value to prior learning acquired from remarkable experiences.The project therefore provided to all actors and institutions concerned a restitution of unique experimentations which showed, based on the experimentations themselves, the multiple possible uses that can be made of the reference framework. Although it may be amended, supplemented or clarified, the framework nevertheless serves as a reference without imposing a normative “Framework”.By formalizing strengths and points of concern which emerged from the great variety of experiments, the project also contributed in a first sharing of findings. This is the subject of the document called the ""Memorandum"", in which six recommendations are thus set out. Its aim is to share with all the actors and institutions wishing to be involved in processes and schemes for the recognition, validation and certification of skills, the lessons learnt from the experimentations themselves as well as from their collective analysis. The recommendations are only valid within the scope of the 10 "" action-research "" studies. They simply have the ambition of being useful in the design and ""engineering"" phase of these schemes."