42In this respect, it should be pointed out that whilst the fourth paragraph of Article 40 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, applicable to the procedure before the Court of First Instance by virtue of the first paragraph of Article 53 of that statute, and Article 116(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance do not preclude the intervener from advancing arguments which are new or which differ from those of the party he supports, lest his intervention be limited to restating the arguments advanced in the application, it cannot be held that those provisions permit him to alter or distort the context of the dispute defined in the application by raising new pleas in law (see, to that effect, Case 30/59De Gezamenlijke Steenkolenmijnen in Limburg v High Authority [1961] ECR 1, 18; Case C-313/90CIRFS and Others v Commission [1993] ECR I-1125, paragraph 22; Case C-245/92 PChemie Linz v Commission [1999] ECR I-4643, paragraph 32; Case T-459/93Siemens v Commission [1995] ECR II-1675, paragraph 21; Joined Cases T-371/94 and T-394/94British Airways and Others v Commission [1998] ECR II-2405, paragraph 75; Joined Cases T-125/96 and T-152/96Boehringer v Council and Commission [1999] ECR II-3427, paragraph 183; Case T-395/94Atlantic Container Line and Others v Commission [2002] ECR II-875, paragraph 382; and Case T-114/02BaByliss v Commission [2003] ECR II-1279, paragraph 417).