🔗 Share this article

The heirs of a Jewish couple have filed a lawsuit against The Met, asserting that a Van Gogh art piece was looted by Nazi forces.

Historical Background

According to the lawsuit, Hedwig and Frederick Stern purchased the artwork, titled Olive Harvest, in the year 1935. Just one year later, they were compelled to leave their dwelling in the German city of Munich prior to WWII.

The suit states that the museum, which purchased the painting in the mid-1950s for one hundred twenty-five thousand dollars, must have realized it was almost certainly confiscated property. The descendants are now requesting the restitution of the canvas along with financial restitution.

Since the end of the war, this stolen artwork has been frequently and covertly traded, acquired and disposed of in and through New York, claims the legal filing.

Family's Flight

The Sterns departed from the city of Munich to America in the late 1930s with their large family due to Nazi persecution. Yet, they were prevented from taking the artwork, which was created by the celebrated artist in the late 19th century.

Before the family's emigration, Nazi authorities classified the artwork as property of the state and banned the couple from bringing it with them. After obtaining permission from a Third Reich agent, a agent assigned by the authorities disposed of the artwork on the Sterns' behalf. However, the funds from the auction were held in a frozen account, which the Nazis later took.

Later Transactions

Around 1948, or shortly after, the painting was brought to the United States and was bought by a wealthy American, among the richest individuals in the US. Subsequently, it was exchanged through a commercial outlet to the institution, which then passed it on to Greek shipping magnate Basil Goulandris and his spouse, Elise, in the early 1970s.

Basil and Elise set up the BEG in the late 1970s, which operates a museum in the Greek capital where the masterpiece is currently exhibited.

Claims and Defenses

The institution and a living relative of the magnate are named as defendants. The filing alleges that the Goulandris family and its associated organizations have hidden and obscured the artwork's provenance and whereabouts from the heirs.

Currently, the Goulandris Defendants continue to hide the circumstances the institution came into control of the piece; the family's possession of the Painting from 1935 to 1938; and the truth that the Nazis stole the Painting from the heirs, forced the Sterns into parting with it via a regime representative, and confiscated the money of the sale.

Prior Cases

The Stern heirs submitted a related lawsuit in CA in recently, but it was rejected in 2024. An legal challenge was also denied in recently.

Museum's Response

The lawsuit contends that the institution's buying of the painting was approved by Theodore Rousseau Jr, the institution's specialist of European paintings and one of the world's foremost experts on Nazi art looting. The institution and its expert knew or should have known that the masterpiece had likely been stolen by Nazis.

The museum said in a statement that it takes seriously its historical dedication to handle issues related to WWII.

A spokesperson remarked: Never during the museum's possession of the artwork was there any record that it had previously been owned to the family – actually, that information did not become available until several decades after the artwork left the Met's possession.

The museum's disposal of the artwork met the Met's guidelines for deaccessioning – specifically, it was recorded that the artwork was judged to be of lower caliber than other works of the same type in the holdings. Although The Met respectfully stands by its stance that this work entered the inventory and was deaccessioned properly and well within all rules and regulations, the Met is open to and will review any new information that comes to light.

Foundation's Defense

A lawyer acting for the foundation said: BEG is a esteemed foundation in Greece. The action to sue and smear the institution and the defendants in the US upon misleadingly incomplete allegations was earlier rejected, on two occasions. We are confident it will be again.