PhD candidate wins case: court overturns TU Delft’s ‘no-go’ decision

Tim Djedilbaev started as a PhD student in the materials science and engineering department at the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering in December 2022. Sixteen months later, in April 2024, he was told that he could not continue: he received a so-called ‘no-go’. Djedilbaev, who was already well into his career as a PhD student in his fifties, was shocked. He was also determined. Against the advice of many (he had heard that disputes with employers rarely lead to a satisfactory outcome for the employee), he fought his case all the way to the court in The Hague.

‘No-go’ overturned

The court has now ruled against TU Delft’s actions. According to the court, Djedilbaev was not “treated with the transparency and consistency that may be expected of a carefully acting administrative body”. Unlike the Doctoral Arbitration Committee, it also ruled that the decision-making process was contrary to Article 3:2 of the General Administrative Law Act, which stipulates that administrative bodies must gather ‘the necessary knowledge about the relevant facts and the interests to be weighed’ when preparing decisions. According to the court, there was such a degree of carelessness that the ‘no-go’ decision must be overturned.

‘The ruling is a fair correction of a serious wrong’

More on what the court found to be wrong later on. First, the reactions of Djedilbaev and TU Delft. The former PhD candidate is cautiously happy and relieved, but above all curious about what will happen next. “I see the ruling as a fair correction of a serious wrong. The immediate priority is to understand how (or even if) TU Delft intends to implement the ruling and reinstate my PhD trajectory. Personally, I would like to continue and finalize the work I started at TU Delft,” he says.

That seems like a logical request. After all, if a ‘no-go’ is revoked, it sounds like a ‘go’, especially now that TU Delft has informed Delta that it will not be appealing the decision. But how should the decision be carried out? “Implementing the ruling does not automatically mean a return to the previous setting,” a TU Delft spokesperson initially wrote. He added that ‘TU Delft, in consultation with the PhD candidate, will assess how a follow-up can be organised in such a way that there is a safe, workable and academically responsible environment’. Djedilbaev is pleased with these words, but has not yet heard anything from TU Delft himself.

Unique case

Documents shared by Djedilbaev with Delta, the ruling by the The Hague court and the hearing that preceded that ruling paint a picture that is far removed from the ‘safe, workable and academically responsible environment’ that TU Delft now says it is seeking. Delta attended the hearing in December 2025 at Djedilbaev’s invitation, after he described in a moving five-page statement how he had fared in previous years (illness and depression haunted him, his career was at a standstill) and why his case deserves media attention: it is unique. It is rare for PhD students to appeal against a ‘no-go’ decision, and even rarer for them to go to court to prove their case.

Djedilbaev’s story consists of two intertwined strands. The first, as far as he is concerned, falls under the heading of social unsafety and began on the first day of his appointment. This storyline is described in detail in a recommendation issued by the Undesirable Behaviour Complaints Committee (KOG) in October 2024. The subject is the difficult relationship between Djedilbaev and his daily supervisor. Djedilbaev regularly feels intimidated and treated disrespectfully, while the supervisor partly recognises this, but mainly does not.

‘Hired monkeys’

The document describes twelve incidents between the two, one of which the KOG declared to be well-founded in its opinion: an incident in which the supervisor called Djedilbaev and a fellow PhD candidate ‘hired monkeys’. The KOG advised the supervisor to undergo training and ‘peer coaching’ aimed at ‘improving communication and conversation techniques’. In a broader sense, the KOG advised that the Board for Doctores, which is formally responsible for ‘go/no-go’ decisions, should ‘already pay explicit attention to encouraging open dialogue, intercultural communication and effective conflict management during the selection and onboarding of PhD students’.

‘Any substantive criticisms should have been communicated ‘clearly and explicitly’’

For Djedilbaev, this was no longer relevant. After all, his contract had already been terminated. However, his appeal to the KOG was certainly not the first time he had sought help. He had also approached the PhD Council UPC, the Doctoral Arbitration Committee and the ombudsman. HR also initiated a (failed) mediation process. His invitation to Delta to come to the court in The Hague reflects his disappointment: ‘In my experience, when informal mediation fails, the outcomes of formal dispute procedures at TU Delft do not carry much weight.’

‘Many irregularities’

Against a backdrop of conflict – the mediation was still ongoing at that point – Djedilbaev attended his ‘go/no-go’ meeting in April 2024. The procedure surrounding this formal part of every PhD programme is the second storyline. The judge’s ruling concerns this procedure alone, but she does take the context into account. The judge sees ‘many irregularities’:

• For example, the ‘go/no-go’ meeting took place four months late (this must take place within one year of the start of a PhD programme, i.e. before or in December 2023), according to the judge, partly due to the protracted conflict between Djedilbaev and his daily supervisor.
• Instead of a timely ‘go/no-go’ meeting, a progress meeting was held in December 2023, at which it was decided that the daily supervisor would be replaced. The judge ruled that Djedilbaev was therefore entitled to assume that attempts were being made to keep his PhD programme on track.
• Moreover, given the history, he could have expected the replacement daily supervisor to ‘actively take charge’ of the supervision, which, according to the judge, did not happen.
• Any substantive criticisms of Djedilbaev’s knowledge and skills should have been shared with him ‘clearly and explicitly’ before the ‘go/no-go’ meeting took place. That did not happen either, according to the judge.
• No minutes were taken of the progress meeting. An action plan was drawn up two months later, but according to the judge, this also showed no concern or doubt about Djedilbaev’s academic development.
• The ‘go/no-go’ meeting took place in April 2024, where it turned out that the old daily supervisor was present instead of the new one, which should not have been the case, according to the judge.
• The court also found that the new daily supervisor did not act as such. “The course of events therefore gives the impression that the replacement was mainly for appearances,” says the judge.
• Djedilbaev’s self-assessment was not taken into account in the ‘go/no-go’decision. The ‘go/no-go’ committee claims that Djedilbaev did not submit it correctly, which the latter disputes. The judge ruled that there was a lack of clear communication about expectations in advance.

Reimbursement of legal costs

Now that the judge has overturned TU Delft’s decision, it must reimburse Djedilbaev for legal costs amounting to approximately 1,850 euros, as well as the court fees. TU Delft does not have to pay a penalty, because the decision on the objection was made in a timely manner.

As mentioned, Djedilbaev is cautiously happy and relieved and hopes that he can finally move on with his life. He emphasises that he did not go to court just for himself. “The way my career ended was not legitimate. I hope the decision helps restore my credibility as a researcher.That matters for any future academic or research path I choose, whether within or outside TU Delft. Beyond my individual case, it underlines that PhD evaluations must meet standards of transparency and due process. If that awareness grows, it could have a protective effect for others.”