FRFG’s Policy Award for Intergenerationally Just Laws
Description of the Prize
At the end of every legislative period in Germany, the FRFG will award an unremunerated prize for a law or legislative initiative which either removes a present injustice that affects future generations or protects future generations from future injustices. The law should be mainly based on the principle of intergenerational justice. The acting recipients of the legislative prize could be politicians who are either members of a government (national governments, EU-Commission), members of a parliament (Members of the European Parliament or UK MPs), or incumbents of a political office (secretary general, board member, leader of youth organization etc.).
The prize was awarded for the first time in 2013 and since then every four years after the federal election. With this award, the FRFG emphasises the importance of intergenerationally just laws and further encourages the newly elected members of the Bundestag to continue this positive development. Since 2017, the FRFG has awarded an additional negative prize for the most intergenerationally unjust law.
Evaluation and selection process
Due to its daily work, the FRFG has a good overview of laws and legislative initiatives being intergenerational just. In order to determine if a law has a positive influence on intergenerational justice, a catalogue of criteria was elaborated (impact of the law, contribution to intergenerational justice, intergenerational justice as justification, level of innovation, participation of young people, temporal continuance, etc.). The selection process is done in cooperation with a jury. In 2014 and 2018, the jury consisted of experts in both the theory and the practice, as well as members of the Scientific Advisory Board of the FRFG and FRFG board members.
The FRFG Policy Award winners so far
2021-2025
For the 20th legislative period of the Bundestag we have selected the following legislation:
Most intergenerationally just law:
The FRFG has once again selected a ruling by the Federal Constitutional Court as the most generationally just ‘law’ of the "Ampel" coalition government's legislative period. The award went to the ruling on the Second Supplementary Budget Act 2021, which was declared null and void by the court. The judges in Karlsruhe made it clear that budget funds cannot be shifted arbitrarily between fiscal years – especially not in circumvention of the debt brake. The ruling strengthens fiscal responsibility towards future generations and calls for greater budgetary clarity and sustainability.
Most intergenerationally unjust law:
The FRFG awards the negative prize for the last legislative period to the amendment to the Climate Protection Act passed in 2024. The reform weakened the binding CO₂ reduction targets for individual sectors and instead introduced an overall assessment – even if individual areas such as transport or buildings consistently fail to meet their climate targets. This weakens the binding nature of climate policy measures and pushes urgently needed emission reductions further into the future – at the expense of future generations.
Positive-Prize: Most intergenerationally just law
Content
In its judgment of 15 November 2023, the Federal Constitutional Court declared the Second Supplementary Budget Act for 2021 unconstitutional and therefore void. As a result, the Federal Government lost access to €60 billion, which it had originally intended to reallocate from credit authorisations granted to address the coronavirus pandemic to the Climate and Transformation Fund. With this decision, the Federal Constitutional Court rejected the Federal Government’s attempt to circumvent the debt brake through budgetary manoeuvring.
The proceedings were initiated by a constitutional complaint filed by the CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the Bundestag against the Second Supplementary Budget Act for 2021. The Federal Constitutional Court found that the Act violated the Basic Law in three respects. First, there was no causal connection between the emergency situation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the reallocation of loans to the Climate and Transformation Fund; the Federal Government failed to demonstrate how this redirection would contribute to combating the pandemic. Secondly, the reallocation contravened the budgetary principles of annuality and yearly budgeting, according to which credit authorisations must be used within the fiscal year in which they are approved. Finally, the adoption of a supplementary budget for 2021 in the year 2022 violated the principle that the budget must be determined in advance.
The Federal Constitutional Court made it unequivocally clear that public funds may not be transferred arbitrarily between budget years – particularly not in order to evade the constitutional debt brake.
Evaluation of the Law
The FRFG justified the awarding of its Positive Prize to the Federal Constitutional Court’s judgment of 15 November 2023 as follows:
The ruling provided the first authoritative clarification of how the debt brake, enshrined in the Basic Law, applies in situations of emergency. In its defence, the Federal Government had invoked the principle of intergenerational justice, arguing that reallocating unused pandemic-related loans towards climate-neutral investments would benefit future generations. The Federal Constitutional Court rejected this reasoning. For the FRFG, this aspect is of particular importance: the judgment prevents current governments from invoking presumed future benefits to justify breaches of the debt brake, thereby safeguarding the fiscal autonomy of future generations. By upholding the debt brake, the Federal Constitutional Court has reaffirmed its role as guardian of the fiscal freedoms of future generations. In reinforcing the budgetary principles of annuality, yearly budgeting, and prior determination of expenditure, the Court calls for greater transparency, sustainability, and integrity in fiscal policy. Such transparency promotes sustainable budgetary practices and ensures that future generations are not burdened by concealed debt, thereby preserving their fiscal flexibility.
In conclusion, the ruling advances fiscal responsibility towards future generations, strengthens budgetary clarity and sustainability, and protects future generations from disproportionate financial burdens.
Negative-Prize: Most intergenerationally unjust law
Content
The second amendment to the Federal Climate Protection Act (FCPA) primarily aims to reform the law’s control and enforcement mechanism. Crucially, the climate targets set by the first amendment in 2021 remain unchanged: Germany is still committed to achieving emission neutrality by 2045. One significant change is the abolition of annual sectoral targets for individual federal ministries. These specific sector-based limits have been replaced by multi-year total emission allowances that span specific decades and are composed of aggregated sectoral contributions. Under the new system, immediate pressure to take action is only triggered if the government's projection data is deemed incompatible with these long-term climate targets and multi-year allowances. The control mechanism itself has also been reformed. The federal government is now only required to act if projection data indicates that the targets will be missed in two consecutive years for the relevant compliance period. Should this happen, the federal government must then present measures to meet the emission targets. The key difference is that while the first amendment placed the obligation to act on individual federal ministries, the second amendment introduces a collective obligation on the entire federal government if the climate targets are not met.
Evaluation of the Law
The FRFG justifies awarding the Negative-Prize for the second amendment to the Federal Climate Protection Act for the following reasons:
The second amendment to the Federal Climate Protection Act weakens key control mechanisms, fails to introduce more stringent reduction targets, abolishes sectoral targets and responsibilities, and shifts accountability further into the future. Failure to implement effective climate protection measures exacerbates the consequences of climate change, such as deterioration of human health, an increasingly hostile living environment, and increased financial burdens. It violates the principle of intergenerational justice because current generations can continue to emit CO2 without suffering drastically from the effects of climate change. The (in)actions of today’s generation will lead to future generations suffering from the worsening consequences of climate change and having the primary responsibility to combat climate change. Furthermore, they must also fear infringements on their human rights and civil liberties to achieve the necessary climate protection.
At a time when scientists are escalating their warnings, Germany is visibly watering down climate protection. The failure to invest in climate protection now will place a heavy burden on future generations, financially, medically, and in terms of their freedom.
2017-2021
For the 19th legislative period of the Bundestag we have selected the following legislation:
Most intergenerationally just law:
With its Legislative Prize, the FRFG reviews an entire legislative period to determine which law best, and which law least, upheld the principle of intergenerational justice. For the 19th legislative period of the German Bundestag (2017–2021), the Legislative Prize took an exceptional approach: for the first time, it was not awarded to a law, but rather to the landmark ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) of 24 March 2021.
Most intergenerationally unjust law:
The prize for the most generationally unjust law of the 19th legislative period was awarded by the FRFG to the “Act on Benefit Improvements and Stabilisation in Statutory Pension Insurance,” adopted by the CDU/CSU and SPD parliamentary groups—better known as the 2018 Pensions Package. The Negative Prize was thus conferred upon the 2018 Pensions Package. A detailed description and evaluation of this law can be found in this dossier.
Positive-Prize: Most intergenerationally just law
Content
The landmark ruling stems from a constitutional complaint filed by nine young people regarding the inadequate measures contained in the first Federal Climate Protection Act (2019), which they consider insufficient to meet the 1.5°C target set out in the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement is an international treaty concluded by 195 parties at the UN Conference of the Parties (COP) under the regime of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The Paris Agreement aimed to promote global climate action as a successor to the Kyoto Protocol.
The Federal Constitutional Court found the Federal Climate Protection Act to be partially unconstitutional and insufficient to protect and guarantee the young and, in some cases, underage complainants’ civil rights and intertemporal liberties in the future.
The consequence was a readjustment of the Federal Climate Protection Act. The changes made are reflected in the amended Federal Climate Protection Act of 2021. The Federal Government has agreed on new climate protection goals: a 65% reduction in emissions by 2030 (+10%) and an 88% reduction by 2040 compared to 1990, as well as achieving climate neutrality by 2045 (-5 years).
Evaluation of the Law
The jury justified awarding the Positive-Prize for the ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court of March 24, 2021, as follows:
This groundbreaking ruling declares for the first time that a specific violation of the principle of intergenerational justice by the legislature is unconstitutional. It can be assumed that this pioneering judgement will change the appreciation of the role of intergenerational justice in politics and society.
The judges' strong orientation toward Article 20a of the Basic Law, which refers to the duty to protect future generations, is unique to date. The judgement can therefore be characterised as revolutionary, as it reinterprets the concept of freedom: the freedom of the generations living today is limited by the freedom of future generations.
Negative-Prize: Most intergenerationally unjust law
Content
The landmark ruling arose from a constitutional complaint filed by nine young people who argued that the measures contained in the first Federal Climate Protection Act (2019) were inadequate to meet the 1.5 °C target set out in the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement is an international treaty concluded by 195 parties at the United Nations Conference of the Parties (COP) under the framework of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It succeeded the Kyoto Protocol and aims to promote global climate action.
The Federal Constitutional Court found the Federal Climate Protection Act to be partially unconstitutional and insufficient to protect and guarantee the complainants’ civil rights and intertemporal freedoms in the future.
As a consequence, the Act had to be revised. The changes were incorporated into the amended Federal Climate Protection Act of 2021. Under the amendment, the Federal Government committed to new and more ambitious climate targets: a 65 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 (an increase of 10 percentage points), an 88 per cent reduction by 2040 compared to 1990 levels, and the achievement of climate neutrality by 2045, five years earlier than previously planned.
Evaluation of the Law
The jury justified awarding the Positive-Prize for the ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court of 24 March 2021 as follows:
This groundbreaking ruling declares for the first time that a specific violation of the principle of intergenerational justice by the legislature is unconstitutional. It can be assumed that this pioneering judgement will change the appreciation of the role of intergenerational justice in politics and society.
The judges’ strong reliance on Article 20a of the Basic Law, which enshrines the duty to protect the natural foundations of life for future generations, is unprecedented. The judgment can therefore be described as revolutionary, as it reinterprets the very concept of freedom: the freedom of those living today is limited by the freedom of future generations.
2013-2017
In 2017, the FRFG awarded, for the second time, its non-monetary Legislative Prize for the most intergenerationally just law of the 18th legislative period (2013–2017). The award recognises a law that either remedies an injustice at the expense of future generations or protects them from impending burdens. Eligible for consideration were all laws passed at the state, federal, or EU level during the 18th legislative period. For the first time in 2017, the most intergenerationally unjust law of the legislative period was also “honoured.”
Proposals for prizeworthy laws could be submitted until 1 May 2017. On the basis of these submissions, an expert jury drawn from academia, politics, and civil society selected both the most intergenerationally just and the most intergenerationally unjust law.
The Legislative Prize was first awarded in 2013, when it was conferred on the Bundestag’s Nuclear Phase-Out Act.
For the 18th legislative period of the Bundestag we have selected the following legislation:
Most intergenerationally just law:
The 2017 Legislative Prize for the most intergenerationally just law of the legislative period was awarded to the Parental Allowance Plus Act (ElterngeldPlus), adopted by the Federal Government in July 2015.
Most intergenerationally unjust law:
In the category of “Most Intergenerationally Unjust Law,” the so-called “Pension at 63” emerged as the unfortunate winner. The fact that, for the first time in the 2017 federal election, more than half of eligible voters were over the age of 55 tempted the Grand Coalition into costly campaign promises—most notably the introduction of early retirement at 63.
2013-2017
The Foundation for the Rights of Future Generations awarded the Legislative Prize for intergenerational justice for the very first time for the 17th legislative period.
Most intergenerationally just law:
The Nuclear Phase-Out Act, which was ratified in 2011.