🔗 Share this article

The heirs of a Jewish pair have initiated legal proceedings against New York's Metropolitan Museum, asserting that a the Dutch artist art piece was seized by the Third Reich.

Origins of the Dispute

According to the court documents, the Stern couple bought the artwork, titled Gathering Olives, in the year 1935. The following year, they were obliged to escape their dwelling in the German city of Munich prior to World War II.

The legal action states that the institution, which acquired the artwork in the 1950s for one hundred twenty-five thousand dollars, ought to have been aware it was likely looted property. The descendants are now demanding the repatriation of the artwork along with financial restitution.

Following World War II, this plundered piece has been often and discreetly exchanged, bought and sold in and through NYC, alleges the lawsuit.

The Sterns' Escape

Hedwig and Frederick Stern departed from their Munich home to California in 1936 with their offspring 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, Nazi authorities declared the masterpiece as a German cultural asset and prohibited the family from exporting it. Once approved from a Third Reich agent, a trustee appointed by the regime sold the piece on the family's behalf. Yet, the funds from the sale were held in a restricted account, which the authorities later took.

Post-War History

In 1948, or soon after, the canvas entered the United States and was purchased by Vincent Astor, a member of the Astor family. Subsequently, it was sold through a gallery to the Met, which then transferred it to prominent shipowner the magnate and his spouse, Elise, in the early 1970s.

Basil and Elise set up the BEG in 1979, which manages a museum in Athens where the artwork is currently shown.

Legal Arguments

BEG and a surviving nephew of Basil Goulandris are identified in the suit. The lawsuit states that the Goulandris family and its associated organizations have concealed and disguised the painting's ownership and whereabouts from the family.

To this day, the Goulandris Defendants continue to obscure the circumstances the foundation came into possession of the piece; the family's possession of the Painting from the mid-1930s; and the facts that the regime confiscated the Painting from the Stern family, coerced the Sterns into selling it via a Nazi-appointed agent, and confiscated the funds of the transaction.

Prior Cases

The Stern heirs filed a related lawsuit in the state of California in recently, but it was rejected in 2024. An further action was also rejected in recently.

The Met's Position

The complaint argues that the institution's buying of the painting was approved by a curator, the institution's specialist of European paintings and a leading authority on art theft during the Nazi era. The curator and the museum must have known that the Painting had probably been seized by Nazis.

The museum issued a statement that it prioritizes its ongoing pledge to address issues related to WWII.

An official commented: Not once during the institution's custody of the artwork was there any evidence that it had previously been owned to the Stern family – actually, that information did not become known until a long time after the artwork left the Museum's collection.

The museum's disposal of the artwork met the institution's rigorous standards for removal from collection – specifically, it was documented that the work was deemed to be of lesser quality than other pieces of the comparable nature in the collection. Even though the institution upholds its position that this piece entered the inventory and was sold legally and well within all guidelines and policies, the institution welcomes and will consider any additional details that emerges.

Foundation's Defense

A lawyer acting for BEG commented: BEG is a esteemed foundation in the Greek capital. The action to sue and smear the organization and the defendants in the United States upon inaccurate and partial claims was previously dismissed, twice. We are convinced it will be a third time.