🔗 Share this article

The family members of a Jewish pair have initiated legal proceedings against The Met, claiming that a Vincent van Gogh canvas was stolen by Nazi forces.

Historical Background

Per the lawsuit, the Stern couple purchased the piece, titled Olive Picking, in the mid-1930s. Just one year later, they were forced to flee their home in Munich just before the Second World War.

The complaint argues that the institution, which acquired the artwork in the 1950s for one hundred twenty-five thousand dollars, must have realized it was almost certainly looted property. The family are now seeking the repatriation of the painting along with damages.

In the decades since World War II, this stolen artwork has been repeatedly and secretly trafficked, bought and sold in and through New York, claims the legal filing.

Forced Emigration

Hedwig and Frederick Stern departed from the city of Munich to the United States in 1936 with their large family due to the oppressive Nazi regime. Nevertheless, they were barred from transporting the artwork, which was painted by the Dutch post-impressionist in 1889.

Before the family's emigration, the regime designated the masterpiece as German cultural property and banned the family from taking it abroad. Once approved from a regime representative, a representative designated by the authorities disposed of the piece on the family's behalf. But, the money from the sale were deposited in a blocked account, which the Nazis later took.

Post-War History

In 1948, or shortly after, the painting entered the United States and was bought by a prominent figure, among the richest individuals in the US. Subsequently, it was exchanged through a commercial outlet to the Met, which then passed it on to wealthy Greek businessman Goulandris and his wife, Elise, in 1972.

Basil and Elise established the Basil & Elise Goulandris Foundation in 1979, which operates a gallery in Athens where the masterpiece is currently shown.

Legal Arguments

The foundation and a living relative of Goulandris are listed as respondents. The legal action states that the Goulandris family and its associated organizations have hidden and obscured the artwork's provenance and current place from the plaintiffs.

To this day, the foundation continue to conceal the circumstances the BEG came into control of the Painting; the Stern family's ownership of the Painting from the mid-1930s; and the reality that the Nazis stole the canvas from the family, forced the family into parting with it via a Nazi-appointed agent, and seized the proceeds of the sale.

Prior Cases

The Stern heirs filed a related lawsuit in CA in the year 2022, but it was rejected in 2024. An appeal was also dismissed in May 2025.

Museum's Response

The legal action argues that the Met's purchase of the artwork was authorized by the museum's expert, the Met's authority of European paintings and a renowned specialist on Nazi-era looted art. Rousseau and the Met knew or should have known that the artwork had likely been stolen by the regime.

The museum said in a statement that it prioritizes its historical dedication to resolve Nazi-era claims.

A spokesperson remarked: Never during The Met's ownership of the piece was there any evidence that it had once belonged to the family – actually, that information did not become available until several decades after the painting left the Museum's collection.

The museum's disposal of Olive Picking met the Met's guidelines for removal from collection – namely, it was recorded that the piece was judged to be of lower caliber than other works of the same type in the inventory. Even though the institution respectfully stands by its position that this piece entered the inventory and was sold properly and well within all rules and regulations, the institution welcomes and will consider any new information that emerges.

Foundation's Defense

Legal counsel acting for the foundation commented: The institution is a renowned institution in Greece. The attempt to litigate and defame the institution and the family in the United States upon deceptive and insufficient accusations was previously dismissed, on two occasions. We are confident it will be once more.