🔗 Share this article

The family members of a Jewish spouses have initiated legal proceedings against The Metropolitan Museum of Art, asserting that a Vincent van Gogh canvas was stolen by the Third Reich.

Case History

Per the lawsuit, Frederick and Hedwig Stern bought the painting, titled Olive Harvest, in the mid-1930s. A year after, they were compelled to leave their home in the German city of Munich prior to WWII.

The complaint contends that the museum, which purchased the masterpiece in the mid-1950s for a significant sum, should have known it was almost certainly looted property. The heirs are now demanding the restitution of the artwork along with compensation.

In the decades since WWII, this Nazi-looted painting 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 the city of Munich to the United States in 1936 with their offspring due to persecution by the Nazis. However, they were unable to bring the Van Gogh piece, which was created by the Dutch post-impressionist in 1889.

Before they left, Nazi authorities declared the masterpiece as property of the state and prohibited the Sterns from taking it abroad. Once approved from a Third Reich agent, a representative designated by the regime auctioned the artwork on the Sterns' behalf. Yet, the money from the auction were deposited in a restricted account, which the Nazis later confiscated.

Post-War History

Around 1948, or soon after, the painting was brought to the United States and was bought by Vincent Astor, a member of the Astor family. Eventually, it was sold through a commercial outlet to the Met, which then sold it to prominent shipowner the magnate and his wife, Mrs. Goulandris, in the early 1970s.

Basil and Elise founded the Basil & Elise Goulandris Foundation in the late 1970s, which operates a gallery in the Greek capital where the masterpiece is currently shown.

Court Allegations

BEG and a living relative of Goulandris are named as defendants. The legal action alleges that the family and its affiliates have concealed and disguised the artwork's provenance and location from the heirs.

Even now, the Goulandris Defendants continue to obscure the manner and time the institution came into control of the artwork; the family's possession of the masterpiece from 1935 to 1938; and the facts that the Third Reich looted the canvas from the family, pressured the Sterns into selling it via a trustee, and took the money of the transaction.

Prior Cases

The family initiated a comparable case in CA in the year 2022, but it was dismissed in 2024. An legal challenge was also dismissed in recently.

Institution's Statement

The lawsuit contends that the museum's acquisition of the painting was sanctioned by a curator, the museum's curator of Old Masters and one of the world's foremost experts on Nazi-era looted art. The institution and its expert must have known that the artwork had likely been stolen by Nazis.

The institution issued a statement that it prioritizes its ongoing pledge to address Nazi-era claims.

A spokesperson commented: Not once during the institution's custody of the piece was there any documentation that it had earlier been possessed to the heirs – actually, that knowledge did not become available until many years after the masterpiece left the institution's holdings.

The Met's sale of the artwork met the museum's strict criteria for disposal – in particular, it was recorded that the piece was deemed to be of lower caliber than additional artworks of the similar kind in the collection. Although The Met upholds its stance that this work entered the inventory and was sold legally and well within all standards and procedures, the institution invites and will examine any new information that is discovered.

Goulandris Statement

A lawyer representing the foundation stated: The Goulandris Foundation is a esteemed foundation in Athens. The action to litigate and defame the institution and the Goulandris family in the United States upon deceptive and insufficient accusations was already thrown out, on two occasions. We are convinced it will be once more.