EU law is superior to Swedish domestic law, and it is on Sweden's responsibility to implement the COJ judgments so that it becomes compatible with EU law. The advantage of the Union being superior is the internal market given the member states. However, problems arise when the Swedish legislature goes further in its interpretation of EU law. Restrictions can be imposed but it must be considered to be strongly motivated so the restriction outweighs the need to maintain the freedoms granted by EU law. In Cadbury Schweppes, the court states that restrictions on freedom of establishment may be done to counter artificial arrangements whose sole purpose is to evade the national tax. Its further stated that an artificial arrangement does not exist in those cases there is a real business, even through the establishment in the low-taxing country is economically justified.  The Swedish CFC rules states that the general rule is that if an establishment in a country within the EEA, which have lower corporate tax than 55% of the Swedish tax, the shareholder of this company is taxed on its current share in Sweden. The outcome of Cadbury Schweppes has not been made into a general rule, it became the exception. In addition to that in Sweden it is presumed that the company is an artificial arrangement that expressly are prohibited by the EUD, as well been implemented to supplement the rule, where the Swedish legislature changes the meaning of the term granted by the appeal. The Swedish legislature has amended the original economically motivated establishment, to be commercially motivated. The term is undefined, but applicable elsewhere in the Incometaxlaw and from this one can find that, for an establishment to be considered as commercially motivated the decisions to establish should be taken to promote normal profit-making enterprises based upon commercially motivated decisions.