🔗 Share this article

The heirs of a Jewish spouses have initiated legal proceedings against New York's Metropolitan Museum, alleging that a Vincent van Gogh canvas was looted by the Nazis.

Origins of the Dispute

According to the legal filing, the Stern couple acquired the painting, titled Olive Picking, in 1935. The following year, they were obliged to escape their home in the German city of Munich just before the Second World War.

The suit argues that the Met, which acquired the masterpiece in 1956 for one hundred twenty-five thousand dollars, ought to have been aware it was almost certainly looted property. The heirs are now demanding the repatriation of the painting along with compensation.

Following the war, this Nazi-looted painting has been frequently and covertly traded, bought and sold in and through NYC, alleges the lawsuit.

Forced Emigration

The Stern family fled from their Munich home to America in 1936 with their six children due to persecution by the Nazis. Yet, they were barred from transporting the Van Gogh piece, which was created by the renowned Dutch in the late 19th century.

Before they left, Nazi authorities classified the masterpiece as a German cultural asset and prohibited the couple from exporting it. Once approved from a Nazi official, a representative assigned by the authorities disposed of the artwork on the family's behalf. However, the money from the transaction were held in a frozen account, which the regime later confiscated.

Post-War History

In 1948, or soon after, the canvas entered the United States and was purchased by Vincent Astor, a member of the Astor family. Eventually, it was sold through a commercial outlet to the institution, which then passed it on to prominent shipowner Goulandris and his wife, Elise, in 1972.

The Greek couple set up the BEG in 1979, which operates a museum in the Greek capital where the masterpiece is currently shown.

Legal Arguments

BEG and a living relative of Basil Goulandris are listed as respondents. The legal action claims that the Goulandris family and its associated organizations have covered up the painting's ownership and current place from the heirs.

To this day, the defendants continue to obscure how and when the foundation came into control of the piece; the family's possession of the artwork from 1935 to 1938; and the truth that the Third Reich confiscated the Painting from the Stern family, forced the Sterns into parting with it via a trustee, and confiscated the proceeds of the transaction.

Prior Cases

The descendants submitted a comparable case in California in the year 2022, but it was rejected in 2024. An appeal was also dismissed in May 2025.

Museum's Response

The complaint states that the institution's buying of the artwork was authorized by the museum's expert, the institution's specialist of Old Masters and a renowned specialist on art theft during the Nazi era. The curator and the museum knew or should have known that the artwork had probably been seized by the Nazis.

The Met said in a statement that it prioritizes its longstanding commitment to address claims from the Nazi period.

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 Stern family – in fact, that information did not become accessible until a long time after the artwork left the Museum's collection.

The institution's deaccessioning of the artwork met the museum's strict criteria for deaccessioning – in particular, it was recorded that the artwork was considered to be of inferior standard than additional artworks of the same type in the collection. Even though the museum respectfully stands by its stance that this work entered the holdings and was sold lawfully and well within all rules and regulations, the museum is open to and will review any further evidence that emerges.

BEG's Response

A lawyer acting for the foundation stated: BEG is a esteemed foundation in Greece. The effort to litigate and defame the organization and the family in the United States upon deceptive and insufficient accusations was already thrown out, multiple times. We are confident it will be a third time.