🔗 Share this article

The descendants of a Jewish couple have filed a lawsuit against The Met, alleging that a Van Gogh oil painting was seized by Nazi forces.

Historical Background

According to the court documents, Frederick and Hedwig Stern purchased the painting, titled Olive Harvest, in the mid-1930s. A year after, they were obliged to escape their residence in Munich prior to WWII.

The legal action contends that the museum, which acquired the masterpiece in the mid-1950s for one hundred twenty-five thousand dollars, should have known it was probably confiscated property. The family are now requesting the restitution of the artwork along with financial restitution.

Following WWII, this plundered piece has been frequently and covertly traded, purchased and sold in and through New York, alleges the court document.

The Sterns' Escape

The Stern family fled from Munich to the United States in 1936 with their large family due to Nazi persecution. Yet, they were barred from transporting the Van Gogh piece, which was created by the Dutch post-impressionist in 1889.

Prior to their departure, the regime classified the masterpiece as a German cultural asset and forbade the family from exporting it. Following authorization from a regime representative, a representative assigned by the regime sold the piece on the family's behalf. However, the funds from the transaction were held in a frozen account, which the authorities later took.

Later Transactions

In 1948, or shortly after, the artwork entered the United States and was purchased by a prominent figure, one of America's wealthiest people. Later, it was transferred through a art dealer to the Met, which then passed it on to Greek shipping magnate Goulandris and his partner, Mrs. Goulandris, in the early 1970s.

The Goulandris pair set up the Goulandris Foundation in 1979, which operates a museum in Athens, Greece where the artwork is currently on display.

Legal Arguments

The institution and a family member of Goulandris are named as defendants. The legal action states that the defendants and its affiliates have hidden and obscured the artwork's provenance and location from the heirs.

To this day, the Goulandris Defendants continue to conceal the circumstances the institution came into ownership of the piece; the couple's ownership of the Painting from the mid-1930s; and the facts that the Nazis confiscated the canvas from the Stern family, pressured the Sterns into disposing of it via a Nazi-appointed agent, and confiscated the funds of the deal.

Earlier Lawsuits

The descendants initiated a similar complaint in the state of California in the year 2022, but it was dismissed in 2024. An appeal was also denied in spring 2025.

Institution's Statement

The legal action argues that the museum's acquisition of the painting was approved by Theodore Rousseau Jr, the Met's authority of European paintings and a leading authority on Nazi-era looted art. Rousseau and the Met must have known that the artwork had likely been looted by Nazis.

The museum issued a statement that it takes seriously its longstanding commitment to address Nazi-era claims.

An official remarked: At no time during the institution's custody of the piece was there any documentation that it had earlier been possessed to the Stern family – indeed, that information did not become known until several decades after the artwork left the Met's possession.

The Met's sale of the artwork met the museum's strict criteria for removal from collection – namely, it was recorded that the artwork was judged to be of lesser quality than additional artworks of the similar kind in the collection. Although The Met upholds its position that this artwork entered the holdings and was deaccessioned properly and well within all standards and procedures, the institution invites and will examine any further evidence that emerges.

BEG's Response

A lawyer representing BEG said: The institution is a renowned institution in the Greek capital. The effort to take legal action against the Foundation and the defendants in the United States upon deceptive and insufficient accusations was previously dismissed, on two occasions. We are confident it will be a third time.