🔗 Share this article

The heirs of a Jewish couple have brought a case against The Met, claiming that a Vincent van Gogh oil painting was seized by Nazi forces.

Case History

Per the legal filing, Frederick and Hedwig Stern bought the painting, titled Olive Picking, in 1935. The following year, they were compelled to leave their residence in Munich, Germany just before World War II.

The complaint argues that the institution, which purchased the artwork in the 1950s for a significant sum, should have known it was almost certainly confiscated property. The heirs are now requesting the repatriation of the canvas along with financial restitution.

In the decades since WWII, this plundered piece has been repeatedly and secretly trafficked, bought and sold in and through New York, claims the court document.

The Sterns' Escape

The Stern family escaped from Munich to California in the late 1930s with their offspring due to persecution by the Nazis. However, they were prevented from taking the Van Gogh piece, which was created by the celebrated artist in the late 19th century.

Prior to their departure, the Nazi government declared the masterpiece as a German cultural asset and forbade the Sterns from bringing it with them. Following authorization from a Nazi official, a agent assigned by the regime disposed of the painting on the Sterns' behalf. Yet, the funds from the sale were deposited in a frozen account, which the regime later seized.

Later Transactions

Around 1948, or not long after, the painting entered NYC and was acquired by a prominent figure, among the richest individuals in the US. Subsequently, it was sold through a commercial outlet to the Met, which then passed it on to Greek shipping magnate Basil Goulandris and his partner, Mrs. Goulandris, in 1972.

Basil and Elise founded the BEG in the late 1970s, which operates a museum in Athens where the painting is currently shown.

Claims and Defenses

The foundation and a living relative of Basil Goulandris are listed as respondents. The filing alleges that the family and its associated organizations have covered up the artwork's provenance and whereabouts from the family.

To this day, the foundation continue to obscure the circumstances the institution came into control of the Painting; the family's possession of the masterpiece from 1935 to 1938; and the reality that the Third Reich stole the canvas from the heirs, coerced the couple into disposing of it via a Nazi-appointed agent, and seized the proceeds of the sale.

Previous Legal Action

The Stern heirs initiated a comparable case in the state of California in the year 2022, but it was dismissed in 2024. An appeal was also rejected in May 2025.

Institution's Statement

The legal action states that the Met's purchase of the piece was sanctioned by the museum's expert, the Met's authority of European art and a leading authority on art theft during the Nazi era. The institution and its expert 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 handle Nazi-era claims.

A spokesperson remarked: At no time during The Met's ownership of the artwork was there any documentation that it had previously been owned to the heirs – in fact, that data did not become available until several decades after the painting left the Met's possession.

The museum's disposal of the Van Gogh met the institution's rigorous standards for disposal – specifically, it was documented that the piece was considered to be of lower caliber than other works of the same type in the collection. Even though The Met maintains its position that this artwork entered the holdings and was deaccessioned lawfully and well within all rules and regulations, the Met invites and will examine any further evidence that emerges.

Goulandris Statement

A lawyer on behalf of the Goulandris Foundation said: The Goulandris Foundation is a esteemed foundation in Athens. The action to sue and smear the organization and the family in the United States upon deceptive and insufficient accusations was previously dismissed, twice. We are confident it will be once more.