House rules and disciplinary regimes in a Spanish hall of residence after Act 3/2022 (2026)
The 1954 decree many sets of house rules descend from has been repealed since 26 February 2022. Here is what replaced it, which articles now govern breaches and sanctions, and what is worth reviewing in a centre's own rules.
What was repealed, and why it matters here
The sole repealing provision of Act 3/2022 expressly repealed the Decree of 8 September 1954, approving the Academic Discipline Regulation. Sixty-eight years in force ended on 26 February 2022.
This is not a historical footnote. That decree's scheme — its way of classifying breaches, its vocabulary, its idea of discipline — is the mould many halls of residence's house rules came out of, some by direct inheritance and others by copying a model that was itself copying it. A good number of those texts are still published exactly as they were.
Ojo con esto
A set of rules that bases its sanctions on a repealed provision is not merely an outdated text: it is a text that will not hold up a sanction if someone challenges it. Checking takes two minutes — search for «1954» and «disciplina académica» in the PDF the centre has posted.
What replaced it
Disciplinary power over students belongs to the vice-chancellor's office (Art. 8), with the possibility of delegation under Act 40/2015. And the classification of conduct no longer sits in a pre-constitutional decree, but in the act itself.
| What | Article | Content |
|---|---|---|
| Very serious breaches | Art. 11 | Eleven cases: among them hazing, acts of violence, sexual harassment, discrimination, destruction of university property, identity fraud and plagiarism. |
| Serious breaches | Art. 12 | Seven cases, centred on academic fraud, damage to property, obstruction of university activity and unauthorised access to systems. |
| Minor breaches | Art. 13 | Three cases, of lesser weight. |
| Sanctions | Art. 14 | Graduated by the seriousness of the breach, from a private reprimand to temporary expulsion. |
| Limitation periods | Art. 17(2) | Breaches: 3 years, 2 years and 6 months. Sanctions: 3 years, 2 years and 1 year. |
| Procedure | Art. 19 | A full procedure in stages, with the option of an abbreviated route for minor breaches. |
| Substitute measures | Art. 20 | Only for serious breaches, with the consent of the parties and an acknowledgement of responsibility. |
Source: Act 3/2022, consolidated text in the BOE.
The underlying shift: from discipline to coexistence
The act's title announces it, and it isn't cosmetic. Alongside the sanctioning regime, the rule introduces two pieces that did not exist before and that change the order of things inside a centre.
- Mediation and alternative dispute resolution (Art. 5), to be preferred over a formal file where the case allows it.
- A Coexistence Committee (Art. 6), with equal representation of students, teaching and research staff, and administrative and services staff.
- Educational or restorative measures (Art. 20) that can replace the sanction for serious breaches.
For a hall of residence this matters more than it looks, because almost everything that happens in a house of this kind is settled long before it reaches a formal file. What the act asks is that this «before» be written down and not depend on who happens to be on duty.
What is worth reviewing in the centre's rules
Without going into each house's particular case, there are five points that come up almost every time an old set of rules is compared with the framework in force:
- The legal references. That none remain to the 1954 decree or to rules that depended on it.
- The line between the residential and the university-disciplinary. What the centre decides through its accommodation relationship, and what belongs to the university's procedure.
- The way a complaint comes in. Where it enters, who sees it, how quickly it is answered, and what happens if it concerns the very person who would receive it.
- Mediation. Whether the rules provide for it as a prior step, and on what criteria the decision to use it is made.
- The fit with the Coexistence Rules of the university the centre is integrated into or affiliated with, which are the ones that govern.
The framework specific to halls of residence
It is worth remembering that Act 3/2022 is not the only rule in play. Royal Decree 1791/2010, the Statute of the University Student, requires that the rules on access to and management of accommodation services guarantee equal rights through a public, objective and transparent procedure, and that they be accessible. And each hall of residence's operation is also governed by its university's statutes and by its own.
Frequently asked questions
Is the 1954 Academic Discipline Regulation still in force?
No. The sole repealing provision of Act 3/2022 expressly repealed the Decree of 8 September 1954, with effect from 26 February 2022. Any set of house rules still citing it as its basis is citing a provision that no longer exists.
Who holds disciplinary power over a resident student?
The university's vice-chancellor's office, under Art. 8 of Act 3/2022, with the possibility of delegation under Act 40/2015. A hall of residence does not itself impose the sanctions the act regulates: what it does have is its contractual and residential relationship with the student, which is a different thing and is governed by its own house rules.
What counts as a very serious breach?
Art. 11 of Act 3/2022 lists eleven cases, among them hazing, acts of violence, sexual harassment, discrimination, destruction of university property, identity fraud and plagiarism. Serious breaches are in Art. 12 and minor ones in Art. 13.
How long until breaches become time-barred?
Under Art. 17(2): three years for very serious breaches, two years for serious ones and six months for minor ones. Sanctions become time-barred after three, two and one year respectively.
Can a sanction be replaced by another measure?
Yes, but only for serious breaches. Art. 20 allows substitute measures of an educational, cultural or community-service nature, and requires the consent of the affected parties and of the person at fault, as well as an acknowledgement of responsibility. They can never consist of doing the work of the university's staff.
Does a private hall of residence have to change its rules?
It is worth reviewing them. Although Art. 2(2) gives private universities and private affiliated centres room to approve their own Coexistence Rules, they have to do so based on the principles and guidelines of the act. A set of rules descending from the 1954 scheme does not meet that fit, even if nobody has looked at it.