If, for whatever reason, the argument in such a situation was not based on a less likely exclusivity in this area of overall EU regulation than in a context such as that of the PFOS case, Article 4(3) of the Teu could instead be postponed.115 In this case, the argument should be that the omission of the Member States would be: prevent a settlement within the OIV that would jeopardize interests. of the Union. It is only with regard to such an argument that it should be possible to balance the interests of the Member States which are parties to the OIV. In other words, with loyalty, the Union`s procedure against the Member States may be less absolute and more open to the balance of interests than by invoking competence. It follows from the previous discussion that Member States are not precluded from adopting a common position only for matters falling within the exclusive competence of the Union before the conclusion of an agreement, as well as for matters for which the Member States are themselves excluded by the Final Act. . . .