🔗 Share this article

The family members of a Jewish couple have brought a case against The Met, asserting that a Vincent van Gogh canvas was seized by Nazi forces.

Origins of the Dispute

Per the legal filing, Frederick and Hedwig Stern bought the artwork, titled Gathering Olives, in 1935. A year after, they were obliged to escape their dwelling in Munich, Germany on the eve of the Second World War.

The complaint contends that the museum, which obtained the painting in the 1950s for a significant sum, must have realized it was almost certainly stolen property. The heirs are now requesting the return of the artwork along with financial restitution.

Following the war, this stolen artwork has been often and discreetly exchanged, bought and sold in and through the city of New York, states the court document.

Family's Flight

Hedwig and Frederick Stern departed from the city of Munich to California in the late 1930s with their six children due to the oppressive Nazi regime. Yet, they were barred from transporting the Van Gogh piece, which was created by the celebrated artist in 1889.

Prior to their departure, the regime declared the painting as a German cultural asset and prohibited the family from exporting it. Following authorization from a regime representative, a trustee assigned by the Nazis auctioned the piece on the family's behalf. However, the money from the sale were placed in a blocked account, which the regime later seized.

Subsequent Ownership

By 1948, or not long after, the painting entered NYC and was bought by Vincent Astor, one of America's wealthiest people. Subsequently, it was sold through a art dealer to the institution, which then passed it on to wealthy Greek businessman the magnate and his partner, Mrs. Goulandris, in 1972.

The Greek couple founded the Goulandris Foundation in 1979, which runs a gallery in the Greek capital where the artwork is currently exhibited.

Claims and Defenses

The institution and a surviving nephew of the magnate are listed as respondents. The legal action alleges that the defendants and its affiliates have hidden and obscured the masterpiece's history and location from the heirs.

Currently, the foundation continue to hide the circumstances the foundation came into ownership of the Painting; the Stern family's ownership of the masterpiece from the mid-1930s; and the facts that the regime looted the canvas from the heirs, coerced the couple into parting with it via a trustee, and confiscated the proceeds of the sale.

Earlier Lawsuits

The descendants initiated a related lawsuit in the state of California in the year 2022, but it was rejected in the following years. An appeal was also denied in spring 2025.

Institution's Statement

The legal action states that the institution's buying of the artwork was approved by Theodore Rousseau Jr, the museum's curator of European art and one of the world's foremost experts on art theft during the Nazi era. The institution and its expert must have known that the artwork had probably been looted by the Nazis.

The museum issued a statement that it takes seriously its longstanding commitment to resolve issues related to WWII.

A spokesperson stated: Never during the museum's possession of the piece was there any documentation that it had earlier been possessed to the Stern family – in fact, that information did not become available until a long time after the painting left the Met's possession.

The institution's deaccessioning of the artwork met the Met's guidelines for removal from collection – namely, it was documented that the piece was judged to be of lesser quality than additional artworks of the comparable nature in the holdings. Even though the museum maintains its position that this work entered the inventory and was deaccessioned legally and well within all rules and regulations, the Met is open to and will review any further evidence that comes to light.

Goulandris Statement

Legal counsel representing BEG stated: BEG is a esteemed foundation in the Greek capital. The action to take legal action against the institution and the defendants in the US upon inaccurate and partial claims was already thrown out, on two occasions. We are convinced it will be a third time.