🔗 Share this article

The family members of a Jewish couple have initiated legal proceedings against The Metropolitan Museum of Art, asserting that a the Dutch artist canvas was looted by the Nazis.

Origins of the Dispute

Per the lawsuit, Hedwig and Frederick Stern bought the painting, titled Olive Picking, in 1935. Just one year later, they were compelled to leave their residence in Munich just before World War II.

The legal action states that the museum, which purchased the masterpiece in the mid-1950s for a significant sum, should have known it was likely confiscated property. The family are now requesting the return of the artwork along with compensation.

Following WWII, this stolen artwork has been repeatedly and secretly trafficked, bought and sold in and through NYC, claims the legal filing.

Family's Flight

The Sterns escaped from their Munich home to America in 1936 with their six children due to the oppressive Nazi regime. Nevertheless, they were unable to bring the Van Gogh piece, which was created by the Dutch post-impressionist in 1889.

Prior to their departure, the Nazi government classified the painting as a German cultural asset and banned the family from exporting it. Following authorization from a regime representative, a trustee appointed by the Nazis disposed of the artwork on the Sterns' behalf. However, the money from the transaction were deposited in a frozen account, which the regime later took.

Post-War History

By 1948, or not long after, the painting entered NYC and was bought by a prominent figure, among the richest individuals in the US. Subsequently, it was exchanged through a art dealer to the institution, which then transferred it to Greek shipping magnate Basil Goulandris and his wife, Elise, in 1972.

The Goulandris pair set up the BEG in 1979, which manages a gallery in Athens, Greece where the masterpiece is currently on display.

Court Allegations

The institution and a surviving nephew of the magnate are named as defendants. The legal action states that the family and its affiliates have hidden and obscured the artwork's provenance and location from the plaintiffs.

Even now, the foundation continue to conceal the manner and time the BEG came into possession of the piece; the couple's ownership of the Painting from 1935 to 1938; and the truth that the Nazis stole the Painting from the family, coerced the couple into selling it via a regime representative, and seized the proceeds of the deal.

Previous Legal Action

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

Institution's Statement

The legal action contends that the Met's purchase of the artwork was authorized by a curator, the Met's authority of Old Masters and a renowned specialist on art theft during the Nazi era. The curator and the museum knew or should have known that the artwork had likely been seized by Nazis.

The institution issued a statement that it prioritizes its longstanding commitment to resolve claims from the Nazi period.

A spokesperson commented: Not once during the institution's custody of the painting was there any evidence that it had earlier been possessed to the heirs – in fact, that data did not become available until a long time after the masterpiece left the Met's possession.

The Met's sale of the Van Gogh met the institution's rigorous standards for removal from collection – namely, it was recorded that the piece was considered to be of inferior standard than other pieces of the comparable nature in the collection. While the museum respectfully stands by its view that this work entered the holdings and was sold properly and well within all guidelines and policies, the institution is open to and will review any additional details that emerges.

Foundation's Defense

Legal counsel acting for the foundation said: The Goulandris Foundation is a renowned institution in the Greek capital. The action to take legal action against the Foundation and the family in the United States upon inaccurate and partial claims was previously dismissed, on two occasions. We are certain it will be a third time.