US government lawyers have said it is critically important its views are taken into account when the High Court finalises the questions to be decided by the EU Court of Justice about the way EU citizens' data is transferred to other countries.

The High Court also heard that Facebook is considering appealing against the decision to refer the matter to the Court of Justice.

The case arises from a complaint by Austrian lawyer, Max Schrems, who said his rights were breached by the transfer of his personal data by Facebook's European Headquarters in Ireland to its US parent company.

The Data Protection Commissioner had asked the High Court to refer the matter to the CJEU.

She wants that court to decide on the validity of the approval by the European Commission of legal mechanisms known as Standard Contractual Clauses, to transfer data from EU citizens to countries outside the EU, primarily the United States.

US law allows such data to be accessed and processed by state agencies. In the EU, citizens' data is protected under the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Last week, Ms Justice Caroline Costello agreed to make the reference, ruling that the Commissioner had raised well founded concerns that there was no compatible, effective remedy in US law, for EU citizens who claimed their rights had been breached.

Today she heard some submissions about preparing the questions for the Court of Justice.

Senior Counsel Eileen Barrington, representing the US government, said it was anxious to have its views on the questions considered because it wants to ensure the description of US law in the High Court's final referral order is factually accurate.

She said her side had some issues about some of the descriptions in the judgment.

Lawyers for Digital Europe, the Business Software Alliance and Washington-based Electronic Privacy Centre - all legal assistants to the court in the Commissioner's case - said they also wished to be heard on the questions.

Lawyers for the Commissioner said they were anxious there should be no attempts to "relitigate the matter" but any actual errors could be corrected.

Senior Counsel Michael Collins said the Commissioner and the defendants - Facebook and Mr Schrems - would try to agree on the wording of the questions and present those to the court.

He was concerned it would be difficult for the three parties to agree a wording and could be "next to impossible" if the others were also involved.

He said the issue of who would be involved in the CJEU case was a matter for that court.

The judge, who will make the final decision on the wording, said it was best the parties try and agree questions but drafts could be sent to the others, who could participate in the court hearing to finalise the wording.

She was told by lawyers for Facebook that the company is considering applying to the Supreme Court for a direct "leapfrog" appeal over the referral.

Senior Counsel, Paul Gallagher said only the Supreme Court could determine if there was an entitlement to appeal over a reference ruling.