🔗 Share this article

The family members of a Jewish couple have filed a lawsuit against New York's Metropolitan Museum, asserting that a Vincent van Gogh oil painting was looted by the Third Reich.

Origins of the Dispute

According to the legal filing, the Stern couple acquired the artwork, titled Olive Harvest, in the year 1935. Just one year later, they were forced to flee their residence in the German city of Munich prior to World War II.

The suit contends that the Met, which acquired the artwork in 1956 for $125,000, ought to have been aware it was probably stolen property. The heirs are now seeking the repatriation of the painting along with damages.

In the decades since the war, this plundered piece has been often and discreetly exchanged, acquired and disposed of in and through the city of New York, alleges the legal filing.

The Sterns' Escape

Hedwig and Frederick Stern fled from their Munich home to the United States in the late 1930s with their six children due to the oppressive Nazi regime. Yet, they were barred from transporting the Van Gogh piece, which was produced by the Dutch post-impressionist in 1889.

Before they left, Nazi authorities designated the painting as a German cultural asset and forbade the family from bringing it with them. Once approved from a Nazi official, a representative designated by the Nazis disposed of the piece on the couple's behalf. But, the funds from the auction were deposited in a frozen account, which the authorities later took.

Post-War History

Around 1948, or soon after, the artwork entered NYC and was bought by a wealthy American, among the richest individuals in the US. Later, it was exchanged through a gallery to the museum, which then passed it on to Greek shipping magnate the magnate and his spouse, Mrs. Goulandris, in 1972.

The Goulandris pair set up the BEG in 1979, which manages a gallery in Athens where the masterpiece is currently exhibited.

Claims and Defenses

BEG and a family member of Goulandris are named as defendants. The legal action states that the defendants and its associated organizations have hidden and obscured the artwork's provenance and whereabouts from the plaintiffs.

Even now, the Goulandris Defendants continue to obscure the circumstances the foundation came into possession of the piece; the Stern family's ownership of the Painting from the mid-1930s; and the reality that the Nazis stole the Painting from the family, pressured the family into selling it via a regime representative, and took the funds of the deal.

Prior Cases

The Stern heirs filed a comparable case in the state of California in the year 2022, but it was rejected in the following years. An legal challenge was also denied in May 2025.

Institution's Statement

The complaint argues that the institution's buying of the painting was authorized by a curator, the museum's curator of Old Masters and one of the world's foremost experts on art theft during the Nazi era. Rousseau and the Met must have known that the artwork had likely been seized by Nazis.

The museum issued a statement that it takes seriously its ongoing pledge to resolve Nazi-era claims.

A representative commented: Not once during the museum's possession of the piece was there any evidence that it had earlier been possessed to the Stern family – actually, that information did not become known until several decades after the artwork left the Met's possession.

The museum's disposal of Olive Picking met the institution's rigorous standards for disposal – namely, it was documented that the piece was judged to be of lesser quality than other pieces of the comparable nature in the holdings. While the museum maintains its stance that this work entered the holdings and was sold legally and well within all rules and regulations, the institution welcomes and will consider any additional details that comes to light.

BEG's Response

A lawyer representing the foundation stated: The institution is a esteemed foundation in Greece. The effort to take legal action against the Foundation and the family in the US upon deceptive and insufficient accusations was previously dismissed, multiple times. We are confident it will be again.