The overall study provides a comprehensive analysis of the enforcement of fines and other pecuniary obligations imposed by the ECB within the Eurosystem and Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) and it highlights how the mismatch between European and national law inherent in Art. 299 TFEU could be resolved. While the focus in Part I was on the European law requirements with regard to the enforcement of pecuniary obligations imposed by the ECB, Part II focuses on the Member State’s (MS) perspective and is based on a comparative analysis of the respective data collected in 2020 via a questionnaire survey in 21 MSs. This data will serve not only to have a closer look if and how the European law requirements are implemented but also to analyse how effective the different legal systems are and to identify gaps in legal protection in practice. The results of the analysis of the realisation at national level are not only relevant for the enforcement of obligations imposed by the ECB, but rather also for the enforcement of legal acts of the Council and the EC However, not the EP, see ECJ, 6 July 2017, C-189/17 P(R), Gollnisch v Parliament , ECLI:EU:C:2017:528, para. 46; Matthias Ruffert , in: Christian Callies/Matthias Ruffert (eds.), EUV/AEUV, Das Verfassungsrecht der Europäischen Union mit Europäischer Grundrechtecharta, 5th edn., 2016, Art. 299 TFEU 1; differing Maria Geismann , in: Hans von der Groeben/Jürgen Schwarze/Armin Hatje (eds.), Europäisches Unionsrecht, 7th edn., 2015, Art. 299 TFEU 2; Martin Gellermann , in: Rudolf Streinz (ed.), EUV/AEUV, Vertrag über die Europäische Union, Vertrag über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union, Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union, 3rd edn., 2018, Art. 299 TFEU 4. In my opinion, it should be indicated of which of the commented instruments Art. 299 is meant. Obviously it can only be the TFEU, but for clarity it should be indicated. as well as judgments of the CJEU (Art. 280 TFEU) as they generally follow the same rules under national law.