🔗 Share this article

The descendants of a Jewish spouses have filed a lawsuit against New York's Metropolitan Museum, asserting that a Vincent van Gogh canvas was seized by the Third Reich.

Case History

Per the lawsuit, the Stern couple purchased the artwork, titled Olive Harvest, in the year 1935. The following year, they were compelled to leave their dwelling in Munich, Germany just before WWII.

The complaint contends that the museum, which obtained the masterpiece in the mid-1950s for a significant sum, should have known it was probably confiscated property. The family are now seeking the repatriation of the artwork along with compensation.

In the decades since World War II, this plundered piece has been repeatedly and secretly trafficked, acquired and disposed of in and through New York, states the court document.

Family's Flight

The Stern family departed from their Munich home to America in the late 1930s with their six children due to persecution by the Nazis. However, they were barred from transporting the painting, which was created by the renowned Dutch in 1889.

Prior to their departure, the Nazi government declared the painting as property of the state and prohibited the couple from taking it abroad. Following authorization from a regime representative, a agent appointed by the regime auctioned the painting on the family's behalf. Yet, the proceeds from the sale were deposited in a restricted account, which the Nazis later took.

Subsequent Ownership

In 1948, or not long after, the artwork was brought to NYC and was bought by Vincent Astor, a member of the Astor family. Subsequently, it was sold through a art dealer to the museum, which then passed it on to wealthy Greek businessman the magnate and his partner, Elise Goulandris, in 1972.

Basil and Elise founded the Goulandris Foundation in 1979, which operates a institution in Athens, Greece where the painting is currently on display.

Legal Arguments

The institution and a surviving nephew of Basil Goulandris are named as defendants. The legal action claims that the defendants and its affiliates have hidden and obscured the painting's ownership and current place from the family.

Even now, the foundation continue to conceal the manner and time the foundation came into control of the artwork; the couple's ownership of the artwork from the mid-1930s; and the reality that the Third Reich confiscated the artwork from the Stern family, coerced the couple into parting with it via a Nazi-appointed agent, and confiscated the money of the deal.

Previous Legal Action

The Stern heirs initiated a comparable case in CA in 2022, but it was thrown out in 2024. An appeal was also dismissed in May 2025.

The Met's Position

The legal action argues that the institution's buying of the piece was sanctioned by a curator, the institution's specialist of European paintings and a leading authority on Nazi-era looted art. The curator and the museum were aware or ought to have been aware that the Painting had almost certainly been seized by the Nazis.

The institution issued a statement that it prioritizes its historical dedication to handle Nazi-era claims.

A spokesperson remarked: At no time during the museum's possession of the artwork was there any record that it had previously been owned to the family – in fact, that data did not become accessible until many years after the masterpiece left the Museum's collection.

The museum's disposal of the Van Gogh met the museum's strict criteria for deaccessioning – specifically, it was recorded that the work was deemed to be of lesser quality than additional artworks of the same type in the holdings. While the museum maintains its position that this piece entered the inventory and was sold properly and well within all rules and regulations, the Met is open to and will review any new information that comes to light.

BEG's Response

A lawyer acting for BEG commented: The Goulandris Foundation is a highly prestigious organization in Athens. The effort to litigate and defame the institution and the defendants in the America upon deceptive and insufficient accusations was earlier rejected, multiple times. We are convinced it will be a third time.