🔗 Share this article

The descendants of a Jewish pair have brought a case against The Metropolitan Museum of Art, asserting that a the Dutch artist oil painting was looted by the Third Reich.

Origins of the Dispute

Per the legal filing, Frederick and Hedwig Stern bought the artwork, titled Gathering Olives, in the mid-1930s. Just one year later, they were compelled to leave their home in the German city of Munich on the eve of WWII.

The legal action contends that the museum, which obtained the artwork in 1956 for a significant sum, must have realized it was almost certainly stolen property. The descendants are now requesting the restitution of the canvas along with financial restitution.

Since the end of the war, this Nazi-looted painting has been frequently and covertly traded, acquired and disposed of in and through New York, claims the legal filing.

The Sterns' Escape

Hedwig and Frederick Stern departed from their Munich home to the United States in 1936 with their six children due to the oppressive Nazi regime. Nevertheless, they were barred from transporting the Van Gogh piece, which was painted by the Dutch post-impressionist in 1889.

Before the family's emigration, the regime declared the artwork as German cultural property and banned the Sterns from bringing it with them. After obtaining permission from a Nazi official, a agent designated by the authorities auctioned the artwork on the couple's behalf. Yet, the funds from the auction were deposited in a blocked account, which the Nazis later seized.

Subsequent Ownership

By 1948, or soon after, the painting was brought to New York and was purchased by a wealthy American, a member of the Astor family. Subsequently, it was exchanged through a gallery to the institution, which then transferred it to Greek shipping magnate Basil Goulandris and his wife, Mrs. Goulandris, in 1972.

Basil and Elise founded the BEG in 1979, which operates a museum in the Greek capital where the artwork is currently exhibited.

Legal Arguments

The institution and a family member of Goulandris are listed as respondents. The legal action states that the Goulandris family and its affiliates have hidden and obscured the masterpiece's history and location from the heirs.

To this day, the defendants continue to conceal the manner and time the foundation came into possession of the Painting; the couple's ownership of the Painting from 1935 to 1938; and the truth that the Nazis looted the canvas from the heirs, pressured the couple into parting with it via a Nazi-appointed agent, and seized the funds of the sale.

Previous Legal Action

The descendants submitted a comparable case in California in recently, but it was thrown out in 2024. An legal challenge was also dismissed in spring 2025.

Museum's Response

The legal action contends that the institution's buying of the artwork was sanctioned by Theodore Rousseau Jr, the Met's authority of Old Masters and a leading authority on Nazi art looting. Rousseau and the Met knew or should have known that the masterpiece had almost certainly been looted by the Nazis.

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 once belonged to the heirs – indeed, that knowledge did not become available until several decades after the painting left the institution's holdings.

The institution's deaccessioning of the Van Gogh met the Met's guidelines for disposal – in particular, it was recorded that the piece was considered to be of inferior standard than additional artworks of the comparable nature in the holdings. While the museum upholds its view that this piece entered the collection and was deaccessioned legally and well within all rules and regulations, the Met is open to and will review any new information that is discovered.

Goulandris Statement

Legal counsel representing the Goulandris Foundation said: BEG is a esteemed foundation in Greece. The action to sue and smear the institution and the defendants in the America upon inaccurate and partial claims was earlier rejected, twice. We are confident it will be again.