🔗 Share this article

The descendants of a Jewish pair have initiated legal proceedings against New York's Metropolitan Museum, claiming that a Vincent van Gogh oil painting was stolen by the Nazis.

Historical Background

Per the lawsuit, Frederick and Hedwig Stern purchased the piece, titled Olive Harvest, in 1935. The following year, they were obliged to escape their residence in Munich prior to World War II.

The complaint argues that the Met, which obtained the painting in the 1950s for one hundred twenty-five thousand dollars, ought to have been aware it was almost certainly stolen property. The heirs are now seeking the return of the painting along with compensation.

In the decades since WWII, this stolen artwork has been frequently and covertly traded, purchased and sold in and through NYC, states the legal filing.

Forced Emigration

The Stern family escaped from their Munich home to the United States in the late 1930s with their six children due to the oppressive Nazi regime. However, they were barred from transporting the artwork, which was painted by the Dutch post-impressionist in 1889.

Before they left, the regime classified the artwork as German cultural property and forbade the couple from bringing it with them. Following authorization from a regime representative, a representative designated by the authorities sold the painting on the Sterns' behalf. But, the funds from the sale were placed in a restricted account, which the regime later seized.

Later Transactions

By 1948, or not long after, the painting was brought to the United States and was purchased by a wealthy American, one of America's wealthiest people. Subsequently, it was transferred through a art dealer to the Met, which then transferred it to prominent shipowner Goulandris and his spouse, Elise Goulandris, in 1972.

The Goulandris pair founded the Goulandris Foundation in 1979, which runs a institution in Athens where the masterpiece is currently exhibited.

Court Allegations

BEG and a family member of Goulandris are identified in the suit. The legal action claims that the Goulandris family and its affiliates have covered up the artwork's provenance and whereabouts from the plaintiffs.

To this day, the foundation continue to hide the circumstances the BEG came into control of the artwork; the Stern family's ownership of the Painting from 1935 to 1938; and the reality that the regime confiscated the artwork from the family, forced the couple into disposing of it via a regime representative, and took the proceeds of the sale.

Previous Legal Action

The descendants submitted a comparable case in California in 2022, but it was rejected in the following years. An legal challenge was also dismissed in spring 2025.

Institution's Statement

The complaint argues that the museum's acquisition of the piece was approved by a curator, the Met's authority of European art and a leading authority on Nazi-era looted art. The curator and the museum were aware or ought to have been aware that the masterpiece had likely been looted by the regime.

The institution responded that it is committed to its historical dedication to address claims from the Nazi period.

An official commented: Never during the institution's custody of the painting was there any documentation that it had previously been owned to the heirs – indeed, that data did not become accessible until a long time after the artwork left the Met's possession.

The institution's deaccessioning of Olive Picking met the museum's strict criteria for disposal – namely, it was documented that the piece was considered to be of lesser quality than other works of the same type in the holdings. While the museum respectfully stands by its position that this piece entered the inventory and was sold lawfully and well within all rules and regulations, the museum is open to and will review any further evidence that is discovered.

BEG's Response

William Charron acting for the foundation commented: The Goulandris Foundation is a esteemed foundation in Athens. The attempt to litigate and defame the institution and the defendants in the United States upon misleadingly incomplete allegations was previously dismissed, on two occasions. We are convinced it will be once more.