🔗 Share this article

The family members of a Jewish spouses have filed a lawsuit against The Met, claiming that a Vincent van Gogh oil painting was seized by Nazi forces.

Case History

As stated in the lawsuit, the Stern couple bought the painting, titled Olive Harvest, in 1935. A year after, they were compelled to leave their home in the German city of Munich on the eve of World War II.

The suit states that the museum, which acquired the masterpiece in the mid-1950s for a significant sum, must have realized it was likely stolen property. The descendants are now demanding the repatriation of the canvas along with compensation.

In the decades since WWII, this Nazi-looted painting has been repeatedly and secretly trafficked, bought and sold in and through New York, states the lawsuit.

Forced Emigration

The Stern family escaped from their Munich home to California in 1936 with their large family due to persecution by the Nazis. Yet, they were unable to bring the artwork, which was painted by the Dutch post-impressionist in the late 19th century.

Before the family's emigration, Nazi authorities classified the artwork as a German cultural asset and banned the Sterns from taking it abroad. After obtaining permission from a Third Reich agent, a representative appointed by the authorities disposed of the painting on the couple's behalf. Yet, the money from the sale were deposited in a restricted account, which the regime later took.

Post-War History

Around 1948, or not long after, the canvas arrived in the United States and was acquired by a wealthy American, a member of the Astor family. Subsequently, it was sold through a commercial outlet to the institution, which then transferred it to prominent shipowner Basil Goulandris and his wife, Elise Goulandris, in 1972.

Basil and Elise set up the BEG in 1979, which runs a museum in Athens, Greece where the painting is currently exhibited.

Court Allegations

The foundation and a surviving nephew of Goulandris are named as defendants. The legal action alleges that the family and its associated organizations have covered up the painting's ownership and current place from the plaintiffs.

To this day, the defendants continue to obscure the manner and time the foundation came into ownership of the piece; the family's possession of the Painting from several years; and the reality that the regime stole the artwork from the family, coerced the family into parting with it via a Nazi-appointed agent, and took the money of the deal.

Prior Cases

The Stern heirs initiated a comparable case in California in recently, but it was rejected in 2024. An appeal was also denied in recently.

The Met's Position

The lawsuit argues that the institution's buying of the artwork was approved by Theodore Rousseau Jr, the Met's authority of European art and one of the world's foremost experts on art theft during the Nazi era. The curator and the museum must have known that the Painting had likely been seized by the regime.

The Met issued a statement that it is committed to its longstanding commitment to resolve issues related to WWII.

A spokesperson remarked: Never during The Met's ownership of the painting was there any evidence that it had previously been owned to the heirs – in fact, that knowledge did not become accessible until many years after the masterpiece left the Museum's collection.

The museum's disposal of the Van Gogh met the Met's guidelines for removal from collection – in particular, it was recorded that the artwork was considered to be of lower caliber than other works of the comparable nature in the holdings. Even though the museum upholds its position that this work entered the holdings and was removed properly and well within all standards and procedures, the institution invites and will examine any further evidence that is discovered.

Foundation's Defense

A lawyer acting for the Goulandris Foundation commented: The Goulandris Foundation is a renowned institution in the Greek capital. The action to litigate and defame the institution and the family in the United States upon misleadingly incomplete allegations was earlier rejected, multiple times. We are certain it will be again.