🔗 Share this article

The heirs of a Jewish couple have brought a case against New York's Metropolitan Museum, asserting that a Vincent van Gogh canvas was looted by Nazi forces.

Origins of the Dispute

As stated in the legal filing, Frederick and Hedwig Stern bought the painting, titled Olive Picking, in 1935. A year after, they were compelled to leave their dwelling in Munich, Germany just before the Second World War.

The complaint contends that the Met, which acquired the artwork in the mid-1950s for one hundred twenty-five thousand dollars, ought to have been aware it was almost certainly looted property. The family are now demanding the return of the artwork along with financial restitution.

Since the end of WWII, this plundered piece has been frequently and covertly traded, purchased and sold in and through New York, claims the court document.

Forced Emigration

Hedwig and Frederick Stern fled from the city of Munich to the United States in the late 1930s with their offspring due to persecution by the Nazis. However, they were prevented from taking the painting, which was painted by the renowned Dutch in 1889.

Before they left, Nazi authorities designated the masterpiece as German cultural property and prohibited the Sterns from taking it abroad. Following authorization from a Nazi official, a trustee assigned by the authorities auctioned the painting on the Sterns' behalf. Yet, the funds from the auction were deposited in a restricted account, which the regime later seized.

Post-War History

Around 1948, or soon after, the artwork entered NYC and was bought by Vincent Astor, a member of the Astor family. Subsequently, it was exchanged through a commercial outlet to the institution, which then sold it to prominent shipowner Goulandris and his wife, Mrs. Goulandris, in the early 1970s.

Basil and Elise founded the Basil & Elise Goulandris Foundation in 1979, which operates a gallery in Athens, Greece where the masterpiece is currently shown.

Legal Arguments

BEG and a surviving nephew of Basil Goulandris are named as defendants. The filing states that the family and its related entities have concealed and disguised the masterpiece's history and current place from the heirs.

To this day, the defendants continue to hide how and when the institution came into ownership of the piece; the family's possession of the artwork from several years; and the truth that the Third Reich looted the artwork from the heirs, forced the Sterns into parting with it via a Nazi-appointed agent, and seized the money of the transaction.

Earlier Lawsuits

The family filed a comparable case in California in 2022, but it was rejected in 2024. An appeal was also rejected in recently.

Museum's Response

The lawsuit states that the Met's purchase of the piece was sanctioned by the museum's expert, the institution's specialist of European art and one of the world's foremost experts on Nazi art looting. The curator and the museum knew or should have known that the artwork had likely been stolen by the regime.

The museum said in a statement that it takes seriously its historical dedication to address Nazi-era claims.

An official commented: At no time during the museum's possession of the piece was there any evidence that it had previously been owned to the heirs – in fact, that data did not become accessible until a long time after the painting left the institution's holdings.

The museum's disposal of the artwork met the institution's rigorous standards for removal from collection – specifically, it was recorded that the work was deemed to be of lesser quality than additional artworks of the same type in the holdings. Although the museum maintains its position that this work entered the holdings and was removed properly and well within all rules and regulations, the Met welcomes and will consider any new information that comes to light.

Goulandris Statement

Legal counsel acting for the foundation said: The Goulandris Foundation is a esteemed foundation in Athens. The attempt to sue and smear the Foundation and the family in the America upon misleadingly incomplete allegations was earlier rejected, twice. We are certain it will be once more.