🔗 Share this article

The family members of a Jewish pair have brought a case against New York's Metropolitan Museum, alleging that a Vincent van Gogh canvas was stolen by the Third Reich.

Historical Background

According to the court documents, Hedwig and Frederick Stern bought the artwork, titled Gathering Olives, in the year 1935. A year after, they were obliged to escape their dwelling in Munich, Germany on the eve of the Second World War.

The suit contends that the institution, which purchased the masterpiece in the 1950s for $125,000, ought to have been aware it was probably stolen property. The heirs are now demanding the restitution of the painting along with compensation.

Following the war, this plundered piece has been frequently and covertly traded, purchased and sold in and through NYC, alleges the legal filing.

The Sterns' Escape

Hedwig and Frederick Stern departed from Munich to California in 1936 with their offspring due to Nazi persecution. However, they were barred from transporting the Van Gogh piece, which was painted by the Dutch post-impressionist in 1889.

Before the family's emigration, Nazi authorities classified the painting as German cultural property and prohibited the Sterns from exporting it. Following authorization from a Third Reich agent, a agent appointed by the regime auctioned the artwork on the family's behalf. However, the proceeds from the transaction were held in a restricted account, which the regime later confiscated.

Post-War History

In 1948, or not long after, the artwork arrived in New York and was purchased by a wealthy American, among the richest individuals in the US. Subsequently, it was transferred through a commercial outlet to the institution, which then transferred it to wealthy Greek businessman the magnate and his spouse, Elise, in 1972.

Basil and Elise established the BEG in the late 1970s, which manages a institution in Athens where the artwork is currently on display.

Claims and Defenses

The foundation and a family member of Basil Goulandris are listed as respondents. The filing alleges that the defendants and its affiliates have concealed and disguised the painting's ownership and current place from the plaintiffs.

Currently, the defendants continue to hide the circumstances the institution came into ownership of the piece; the family's possession of the artwork from several years; and the reality that the Third Reich confiscated the artwork from the family, forced the family into parting with it via a regime representative, and seized the funds of the deal.

Prior Cases

The family submitted a related lawsuit in CA in 2022, but it was dismissed in 2024. An appeal was also rejected in spring 2025.

Institution's Statement

The lawsuit argues that the institution's buying of the piece was approved by the museum's expert, the Met's authority of European art and a leading authority on Nazi art looting. The curator and the museum must have known that the artwork had almost certainly been seized by Nazis.

The institution responded that it prioritizes its longstanding commitment to handle issues related to WWII.

An official stated: Never during The Met's ownership of the artwork was there any documentation that it had earlier been possessed to the Stern family – indeed, that knowledge did not become known until several decades after the painting left the Museum's collection.

The museum's disposal of the Van Gogh met the museum's strict criteria for deaccessioning – specifically, it was documented that the piece was considered to be of inferior standard than other pieces of the same type in the holdings. Although the museum maintains its stance that this work entered the collection and was removed lawfully and well within all guidelines and policies, the Met is open to and will review any further evidence that is discovered.

Foundation's Defense

William Charron acting for the foundation said: The institution is a esteemed foundation in Athens. The action to sue and smear the institution and the family in the America upon misleadingly incomplete allegations was previously dismissed, twice. We are certain it will be a third time.