🔗 Share this article

The heirs of a Jewish couple have filed a lawsuit against The Metropolitan Museum of Art, claiming that a Vincent van Gogh art piece was looted by the Third Reich.

Origins of the Dispute

As stated in the legal filing, Frederick and Hedwig Stern acquired the painting, titled Olive Picking, in 1935. Just one year later, they were obliged to escape their home in Munich prior to the Second World War.

The complaint contends that the Met, which acquired the masterpiece in the mid-1950s for $125,000, should have known it was probably stolen property. The descendants are now requesting the return of the artwork along with financial restitution.

In the decades since the war, this Nazi-looted painting has been frequently and covertly traded, acquired and disposed of in and through New York, states the legal filing.

Forced Emigration

The Sterns escaped from Munich to California in the late 1930s with their six children due to persecution by the Nazis. Nevertheless, they were barred from transporting the Van Gogh piece, which was painted by the celebrated artist in 1889.

Before the family's emigration, Nazi authorities designated the painting as German cultural property and prohibited the couple from bringing it with them. After obtaining permission from a Third Reich agent, a agent appointed by the authorities auctioned the painting on the couple's behalf. But, the money from the auction were placed in a blocked account, which the authorities later seized.

Post-War History

In 1948, or shortly after, the canvas was brought to NYC and was bought by a prominent figure, one of America's wealthiest people. Later, it was exchanged through a commercial outlet to the institution, which then transferred it to wealthy Greek businessman the magnate and his wife, Elise, in 1972.

The Greek couple set up the Basil & Elise Goulandris Foundation in 1979, which runs a gallery in Athens where the painting is currently on display.

Court Allegations

The institution and a surviving nephew of the magnate are listed as respondents. The legal action states that the Goulandris family and its associated organizations have concealed and disguised the masterpiece's history and location from the plaintiffs.

Currently, the foundation continue to obscure how and when the BEG came into ownership of the Painting; the couple's ownership of the masterpiece from several years; and the reality that the regime confiscated the Painting from the Stern family, pressured the Sterns into parting with it via a regime representative, and confiscated the money of the deal.

Earlier Lawsuits

The descendants initiated a comparable case 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 authorized by the museum's expert, the institution's specialist of Old Masters and a renowned specialist on art theft during the Nazi era. The institution and its expert knew or should have known that the Painting had probably been looted by the regime.

The institution responded that it takes seriously its historical dedication to resolve Nazi-era claims.

A representative stated: At no time during the institution's custody of the artwork was there any evidence that it had previously been owned to the Stern family – in fact, that knowledge did not become accessible until a long time after the masterpiece left the Museum's collection.

The Met's sale of the Van Gogh met the institution's rigorous standards for deaccessioning – in particular, it was documented that the work was judged to be of lower caliber than other works of the similar kind in the inventory. Although The Met respectfully stands by its position that this artwork entered the holdings and was removed properly and well within all guidelines and policies, the institution is open to and will review any additional details that comes to light.

Foundation's Defense

A lawyer on behalf of BEG said: BEG is a renowned institution in Greece. The action to sue and smear the Foundation and the defendants in the US upon inaccurate and partial claims was earlier rejected, on two occasions. We are confident it will be a third time.