🔗 Share this article

The heirs of a Jewish pair have initiated legal proceedings against The Met, alleging that a Vincent van Gogh art piece was seized by the Nazis.

Case History

According to the lawsuit, Hedwig and Frederick Stern acquired the painting, titled Olive Picking, in the year 1935. The following year, they were compelled to leave their dwelling in the German city of Munich on the eve of the Second World War.

The legal action states that the institution, which obtained the masterpiece in the 1950s for one hundred twenty-five thousand dollars, ought to have been aware it was probably confiscated property. The heirs are now requesting the repatriation of the painting along with financial restitution.

Following the war, this plundered piece has been repeatedly and secretly trafficked, acquired and disposed of in and through the city of New York, states the court document.

Forced Emigration

The Sterns departed from the city of Munich to the United States in the late 1930s with their six children due to Nazi persecution. Nevertheless, they were prevented from taking the painting, which was painted by the celebrated artist in the late 19th century.

Prior to their departure, the regime designated the artwork as property of the state and prohibited the Sterns from bringing it with them. After obtaining permission from a Third Reich agent, a trustee designated by the regime sold the artwork on the Sterns' behalf. Yet, the money from the auction were deposited in a restricted account, which the regime later seized.

Later Transactions

In 1948, or soon after, the canvas was brought to the United States and was acquired by Vincent Astor, a member of the Astor family. Subsequently, it was sold through a art dealer to the institution, which then passed it on to prominent shipowner the magnate and his wife, Elise, in 1972.

The Goulandris pair set up the Goulandris Foundation in the late 1970s, which manages a gallery in Athens where the masterpiece is currently exhibited.

Legal Arguments

The institution and a family member of the magnate are named as defendants. The filing states that the defendants and its affiliates have concealed and disguised the painting's ownership and location from the family.

Currently, the foundation continue to hide how and when the foundation came into possession of the piece; the Stern family's ownership of the artwork from several years; and the facts that the regime confiscated the Painting from the Stern family, coerced the couple into disposing of it via a trustee, and confiscated the proceeds of the transaction.

Previous Legal Action

The descendants filed a similar complaint in California in 2022, but it was dismissed in 2024. An legal challenge was also dismissed in recently.

The Met's Position

The complaint states that the institution's buying of the painting was approved by Theodore Rousseau Jr, the Met's authority of European paintings and one of the world's foremost experts on Nazi-era looted art. The institution and its expert knew or should have known that the Painting had almost certainly been seized by Nazis.

The museum said in a statement that it prioritizes its historical dedication to address issues related to WWII.

A representative remarked: Not once during the museum's possession of the artwork was there any evidence that it had once belonged to the heirs – actually, that data 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 museum's strict criteria for disposal – in particular, it was recorded that the work was judged to be of lower caliber than additional artworks of the same type in the holdings. While The Met upholds its view that this artwork entered the holdings and was removed properly and well within all rules and regulations, the museum is open to and will review any further evidence that is discovered.

BEG's Response

A lawyer acting for the Goulandris Foundation commented: The Goulandris Foundation is a renowned institution in Athens. The effort to litigate and defame the institution and the defendants in the America upon deceptive and insufficient accusations was earlier rejected, on two occasions. We are certain it will be again.