🔗 Share this article

The heirs of a Jewish pair have initiated legal proceedings against New York's Metropolitan Museum, asserting that a Van Gogh art piece was looted by the Third Reich.

Origins of the Dispute

Per the court documents, Hedwig and Frederick Stern bought the artwork, titled Olive Harvest, in 1935. The following year, they were obliged to escape their home in Munich on the eve of World War II.

The complaint states that the institution, which acquired the masterpiece in the 1950s for one hundred twenty-five thousand dollars, ought to have been aware it was almost certainly confiscated property. The descendants are now seeking the restitution of the artwork along with compensation.

Since the end of the war, this Nazi-looted painting has been repeatedly and secretly trafficked, purchased and sold in and through New York, states the lawsuit.

The Sterns' Escape

The Sterns escaped from their Munich home to the United States in 1936 with their six children due to persecution by the Nazis. Yet, they were prevented from taking the Van Gogh piece, which was produced by the Dutch post-impressionist in 1889.

Prior to their departure, the Nazi government designated the artwork as German cultural property and forbade the family from taking it abroad. Following authorization from a Nazi official, a agent assigned by the regime sold the piece on the family's behalf. However, the proceeds from the auction were placed in a blocked account, which the authorities later took.

Post-War History

In 1948, or shortly after, the artwork entered New York and was acquired by a wealthy American, one of America's wealthiest people. Eventually, it was exchanged through a gallery to the museum, which then sold it to wealthy Greek businessman the magnate and his wife, Elise, in 1972.

The Goulandris pair founded the BEG in 1979, which operates a gallery in Athens, Greece where the masterpiece is currently shown.

Court Allegations

The foundation and a family member of Goulandris are identified in the suit. The legal action states that the family and its related entities have covered up the artwork's provenance and current place from the heirs.

Currently, the Goulandris Defendants continue to obscure the circumstances the foundation came into control of the artwork; the Stern family's ownership of the masterpiece from several years; and the reality that the Nazis confiscated the Painting from the family, forced the couple into selling it via a trustee, and confiscated the proceeds of the deal.

Prior Cases

The family submitted a similar complaint in CA in recently, but it was rejected in the following years. An legal challenge was also denied in May 2025.

Institution's Statement

The lawsuit states that the institution's buying of the piece was authorized by Theodore Rousseau Jr, the Met's authority of European art and a renowned specialist on art theft during the Nazi era. Rousseau and the Met knew or should have known that the masterpiece had probably been seized by Nazis.

The Met issued a statement that it takes seriously its longstanding commitment to address issues related to WWII.

An official stated: Never during the museum's possession of the piece was there any record that it had previously been owned to the family – in fact, that knowledge did not become available until a long time after the artwork left the institution's holdings.

The institution's deaccessioning of Olive Picking met the museum's strict criteria for deaccessioning – namely, it was documented that the artwork was judged to be of inferior standard than other pieces of the similar kind in the holdings. Even though The Met maintains its position that this artwork entered the inventory and was deaccessioned properly and well within all rules and regulations, the museum welcomes and will consider any additional details that emerges.

Goulandris Statement

A lawyer acting for BEG said: The Goulandris Foundation is a highly prestigious organization in Athens. The attempt to litigate and defame the organization and the defendants in the United States upon inaccurate and partial claims was already thrown out, multiple times. We are certain it will be once more.