Since the context is based on the article )Organic Law on Universities), the translation is correct

...is devoid of the effects set forth in Article 35 of the aforementioned Organic Law of Universities

Opinion 2/13 of the Court - CURIA - Documentshttps://curia.europa.eu › document
Traducir esta página
18 dic 2014 — 'Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the ECHR] are ... Moreover, most of them have been repealed or have become devoid of ...



The Rights of Non-citizens - OHCHRhttps://www.ohchr.org › Documents › Publications
PDF
“the rights set forth in the Covenant apply to everyone, ... or her circumstances, is devoid of legal protection for his or her fundamental.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2023-01-16 10:26:41 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

... the Stockholm Act of the Paris Convention in its entirety or with only the limitation set forth in Article 20(1)(b)(i) thereof.
https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/283854

https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/set-forth

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 7 hrs (2023-01-16 16:31:45 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Es menester puntualizar que, en este caso, la acepción correcta de “efecto” no es la primera que figura en la página de la RAE, (1. m. Aquello que sigue por virtud de una causa). La acepción correcta de “efecto” en cuestión es la tercera (3. m. Fin para que se hace algo).
https://dle.rae.es/efecto?m=form


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 8 hrs (2023-01-16 18:10:27 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

For those pretending to disqualify my translation, since you are so worried about the correct use of “devoid of effect”, why don’t you put forward an argument destroying the validity of the New York Convention?
104. United States courts and English courts have defined the expression “null and void” to mean “devoid of legal effect”.337
https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=cmspage&page...


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 12 hrs (2023-01-16 22:04:09 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

El presente título propio, regulado en el artículo 34 Ley Orgánica 6/2001...

Artículo 34. Títulos universitarios.
1. Las universidades impartirán enseñanzas conducentes a la obtención de títulos oficiales y con validez en todo el territorio nacional y podrán impartir enseñanzas conducentes a la obtención de otros títulos.
2. Los títulos universitarios de carácter oficial y con validez en todo el territorio nacional deberán inscribirse en el Registro de universidades, centros y títulos, previsto en la disposición adicional vigésima. Podrán inscribirse otros títulos a efectos informativos. El Gobierno regulará el procedimiento y las condiciones para su inscripción.

This is a second answer as an invitation to @Robert Carter, @Andrew Bramhall, @AllegroTrans, @jemad, @Zorra Renard, @Julio Carrero, and a moderator.

This invitation appeals to the professional translator characters I want to think we all represent.

I urge you to understand that this is not a football match where, let’s say, by virtue of your nationality or your talent, you may happen to kick the perfect goal. Your kick and the ball are not subject to grammar rules.

I invite you to kindly assume intellectual honesty in order to successfully put forward the rationale to explain the intended usage of “effect” in this case.

Should you fail to recognize or understand what I am kindly looking forward to clarifying, then we would not be talking about intellectual dishonesty. In such a case, you would incur intellectual misery or negligence.

Curiosamente, más que un caso de “legalese” parecería un caso “leguleyo”.
Let’s analyze and rationalize both your answer and mine, Andrew Bramhall.

Your answer:
is/remains unaffected by the provisions set out under Article

Your explanation:
This is the most idiomatic way to frame it in legalese in my opinion;

Simply put, you gave no solid explanation or reference whatsoever. You pretend that as a miracle stemmed from your use of the term “legalese”, your answer is automatically valid.

Unfortunately, neither you, AllegroTrans, Zorra Renard nor jemad read Article 34, which is the subject matter here.

The four of you ignored both the Article I did offer, and you also overlooked Spanish grammar rules which are clear enough to understand that you are attributing the first meaning of “efecto” (1. m. Aquello que sigue por virtud de una causa, i.e., a consequence).

It is worth adding that I won’t judge or criticize your native English capabilities, but I do have a moral obligation to clarify the situation and make you understand based on Article 34 and on the RAE use, that you are attributing the wrong meaning in Spanish.

Upon conscious consideration of Article 34, it turns out that we are not talking about a “consequence”, we are referring to the “purpose”, as explained in the third meaning of RAE.

If you have not understood so far, I will use a grammar approach to shed some light on your confusion.

Mr. Robert Carter perfectly understood the intended meaning and adverted you thereof, Andrew.
([Robert Carter] If you look at the legislation in question, you'll see this is not the intended meaning.)

Here we have a case with two different uses, the former being the “consequence” (1st one) and the latter being the purpose (3rd one).

From the grammatical standpoint, let’s identify both nouns. Here, the difference between purpose and effect is that “purpose” is an object to be reached; a target; an aim; a goal, while “effect” is the result or outcome of a cause.

Let’s go deeper, a direct object is the person or thing that directly receives the action or effect of the verb (i.e., the consequence). It answers the question "what" or "whom." (Corresponding precisely to the first meaning offered by RAE: Aquello que sigue por virtud de una causa, i.e., a consequence).

Now, as for the indirect object, it answers the question "for what," "of what," "to what," "for whom," "of whom," or "to whom" and accompanies a direct object.

Rephrasing, the indirect object identifies the person/thing for whom/what the action of the verb is performed, i.e., THE PURPOSE (Which corresponds precisely to the third meaning offered by RAE: Fin para que se hace algo.)

Now, I’m copying the references I gave.
My answer:

is devoid of the effects set forth in Article

Explanation:

Es menester puntualizar que, en este caso, la acepción correcta de “efecto” no es la primera que figura en la página de la RAE, (1. m. Aquello que sigue por virtud de una causa). La acepción correcta de “efecto” en cuestión es la tercera (3. m. Fin para que se hace algo).
https://dle.rae.es/efecto?m=form


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 8 hrs (2023-01-16 18:10:27 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

For those pretending to disqualify my translation, since you are so worried about the correct use of “devoid of effect”, why don’t you put forward an argument destroying the validity of the New York Convention?
104. United States courts and English courts have defined the expression “null and void” to mean “devoid of legal effect”.337
https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=cmspage&page...


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 12 hrs (2023-01-16 22:04:09 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

El presente título propio, regulado en el artículo 34 Ley Orgánica 6/2001...

Artículo 34. Títulos universitarios.
1. Las universidades impartirán enseñanzas conducentes a la obtención de títulos oficiales y con validez en todo el territorio nacional y podrán impartir enseñanzas conducentes a la obtención de otros títulos.
2. Los títulos universitarios de carácter oficial y con validez en todo el territorio nacional deberán inscribirse en el Registro de universidades, centros y títulos, previsto en la disposición adicional vigésima. Podrán inscribirse otros títulos a efectos informativos. El Gobierno regulará el procedimiento y las condiciones para su inscripción.

Sorry if I include you in “gentlemen” Zorra Renard; I assume that no lady would take pride in being called a Foxy Lady, well except she’s a real pro.
So, Gentlemen, I’m not being stubborn or trying to get personal recognition or KudoZ points. I don’t even care about the points. What happens is that I do have a genuine interest in sharing my understanding and helping you out of this confusion of yours by virtue of my expertise and deep insight. And, finally, I would hate telling you that “you don’t understand that you don’t understand.”

I certainly refuse to believe that you are nescient, Andrew, AllegroTrans, Zorra Renard, and jemad.

That being said, would you agree that the answer selected as the correct one is clearly wrong?

Therefore, to our dear moderator, what would you suggest in such an extraordinary case of the wrong answer being selected upon a neglected consideration?


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 10 days (2023-01-26 22:42:05 GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------

This is a second answer as an invitation to @Robert Carter, @Andrew Bramhall, @AllegroTrans, @jemad, @Zorra Renard, @Julio Carrero