🔗 Share this article

The descendants of a Jewish couple have filed a lawsuit against The Met, claiming that a Vincent van Gogh oil painting was stolen by the Third Reich.

Historical Background

According to the court documents, Frederick and Hedwig Stern purchased the artwork, titled Olive Picking, in the year 1935. A year after, they were forced to flee their residence in Munich, Germany just before the Second World War.

The legal action argues that the Met, which purchased the masterpiece in the 1950s for $125,000, ought to have been aware it was likely looted property. The descendants are now seeking the repatriation of the artwork along with financial restitution.

In the decades since the war, this plundered piece has been repeatedly and secretly trafficked, purchased and sold in and through NYC, states the legal filing.

The Sterns' Escape

Hedwig and Frederick Stern departed from their Munich home to America in the late 1930s with their offspring due to the oppressive Nazi regime. However, they were barred from transporting the painting, which was produced by the Dutch post-impressionist in the late 19th century.

Prior to their departure, Nazi authorities declared the masterpiece as property of the state and forbade the family from taking it abroad. Once approved from a Nazi official, a agent appointed by the regime auctioned the artwork on the couple's behalf. However, the funds from the transaction were held in a restricted account, which the regime later confiscated.

Subsequent Ownership

Around 1948, or not long after, the artwork arrived in the United States and was bought by a prominent figure, among the richest individuals in the US. Subsequently, it was exchanged through a gallery to the museum, which then transferred it to prominent shipowner Goulandris and his wife, Elise, in 1972.

The Greek couple established the Goulandris Foundation in 1979, which operates a museum in Athens, Greece where the painting is currently on display.

Legal Arguments

The institution and a surviving nephew of Basil Goulandris are named as defendants. The lawsuit claims that the Goulandris family and its related entities have hidden and obscured the artwork's provenance and current place from the heirs.

Currently, the foundation continue to hide how and when the institution came into possession of the artwork; the Stern family's ownership of the artwork from the mid-1930s; and the truth that the Nazis stole the canvas from the family, forced the family into parting with it via a Nazi-appointed agent, and seized the money of the sale.

Previous Legal Action

The family filed a similar complaint in the state of California in 2022, but it was thrown out in the following years. An appeal was also denied in May 2025.

Institution's Statement

The legal action argues that the institution's buying of the painting was authorized by Theodore Rousseau Jr, the museum's curator of Old Masters and a leading authority on art theft during the Nazi era. Rousseau and the Met must have known that the Painting had almost certainly been stolen by Nazis.

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

A representative remarked: At no time during The Met's ownership of the piece was there any record that it had earlier been possessed to the heirs – actually, that data did not become available until many years after the painting left the institution's holdings.

The institution's deaccessioning of Olive Picking met the museum's strict criteria for disposal – namely, it was noted that the artwork was deemed to be of lesser quality than additional artworks of the same type in the holdings. While the institution upholds its stance that this work entered the holdings and was removed properly and well within all rules and regulations, the museum welcomes and will consider any new information that comes to light.

BEG's Response

Legal counsel acting for the foundation said: BEG is a renowned institution in Athens. The attempt to take legal action against the Foundation and the family in the United States upon inaccurate and partial claims was earlier rejected, on two occasions. We are convinced it will be a third time.