🔗 Share this article

The family members of a Jewish couple have initiated legal proceedings against New York's Metropolitan Museum, claiming that a the Dutch artist oil painting was looted by Nazi forces.

Case History

As stated in the lawsuit, the Stern couple bought the painting, titled Olive Harvest, in the mid-1930s. A year after, they were compelled to leave their residence in Munich prior to World War II.

The suit argues that the Met, which obtained the painting in 1956 for a significant sum, must have realized it was almost certainly stolen property. The family are now demanding the repatriation of the painting along with financial restitution.

In the decades since the war, this stolen artwork has been repeatedly and secretly trafficked, purchased and sold in and through the city of New York, claims the lawsuit.

Family's Flight

The Sterns fled from Munich to America in 1936 with their offspring due to Nazi persecution. Nevertheless, they were barred from transporting the Van Gogh piece, which was produced by the renowned Dutch in 1889.

Prior to their departure, the regime declared the masterpiece as German cultural property and prohibited the couple from taking it abroad. Once approved from a Nazi official, a representative appointed by the authorities disposed of the piece on the Sterns' behalf. Yet, the proceeds from the transaction were deposited in a frozen account, which the authorities later confiscated.

Later Transactions

By 1948, or not long after, the canvas entered NYC and was purchased by Vincent Astor, a member of the Astor family. Eventually, it was exchanged through a art dealer to the institution, which then transferred it to Greek shipping magnate Basil Goulandris and his partner, Mrs. Goulandris, in 1972.

Basil and Elise founded the Basil & Elise Goulandris Foundation in 1979, which runs a gallery in Athens where the masterpiece is currently exhibited.

Legal Arguments

The institution and a living relative of Basil Goulandris are named as defendants. The legal action states that the defendants and its associated organizations have concealed and disguised the painting's ownership and location from the family.

To this day, the Goulandris Defendants continue to conceal the manner and time the BEG came into ownership of the artwork; the family's possession of the artwork from 1935 to 1938; and the truth that the Nazis confiscated the canvas from the family, pressured the family into selling it via a Nazi-appointed agent, and took the funds of the transaction.

Prior Cases

The Stern heirs submitted a related lawsuit in the state of California in recently, but it was rejected in the following years. An further action was also rejected in spring 2025.

Museum's Response

The complaint states that the Met's purchase of the artwork was sanctioned by Theodore Rousseau Jr, the museum's curator of European art and a leading authority on Nazi art looting. The curator and the museum were aware or ought to have been aware that the masterpiece had probably been seized by the regime.

The museum responded that it prioritizes its historical dedication to resolve claims from the Nazi period.

A spokesperson stated: At no time during The Met's ownership of the artwork was there any record that it had previously been owned to the heirs – actually, that data did not become known until several decades after the masterpiece left the Museum's collection.

The museum's disposal of the artwork met the institution's rigorous standards for deaccessioning – namely, it was recorded that the work was judged to be of inferior standard than additional artworks of the comparable nature in the holdings. While The Met upholds its position that this work entered the collection and was deaccessioned legally and well within all standards and procedures, the institution is open to and will review any additional details that comes to light.

Foundation's Defense

William Charron on behalf of BEG commented: BEG is a renowned institution in Athens. The attempt to sue and smear the institution and the defendants in the United States upon deceptive and insufficient accusations was earlier rejected, on two occasions. We are certain it will be a third time.