🔗 Share this article

The family members of a Jewish couple have initiated legal proceedings against The Metropolitan Museum of Art, claiming that a Vincent van Gogh canvas was looted by the Third Reich.

Case History

According to the legal filing, the Stern couple purchased the piece, titled Olive Harvest, in the year 1935. The following year, they were compelled to leave their home in the German city of Munich prior to the Second World War.

The suit argues that the institution, which purchased the masterpiece in 1956 for a significant sum, ought to have been aware it was probably stolen property. The family are now seeking the restitution of the artwork along with compensation.

Following World War II, this stolen artwork has been frequently and covertly traded, purchased and sold in and through NYC, alleges the court document.

The Sterns' Escape

The Stern family departed from their Munich home to California in 1936 with their six children due to Nazi persecution. Nevertheless, they were unable to bring the artwork, which was produced by the renowned Dutch in 1889.

Before they left, Nazi authorities designated the artwork as property of the state and forbade the family from bringing it with them. Once approved from a Nazi official, a representative assigned by the Nazis sold the artwork on the couple's behalf. But, the funds from the auction were placed in a restricted account, which the Nazis later seized.

Post-War History

By 1948, or shortly after, the canvas was brought to the United States and was purchased by a prominent figure, among the richest individuals in the US. Subsequently, it was transferred through a art dealer to the museum, which then sold it to prominent shipowner Goulandris and his spouse, Mrs. Goulandris, in the early 1970s.

Basil and Elise set up the Basil & Elise Goulandris Foundation in 1979, which manages a institution in Athens where the painting is currently shown.

Claims and Defenses

The foundation and a living relative of Goulandris are listed as respondents. The filing claims that the Goulandris family and its related entities have covered up the masterpiece's history and whereabouts from the heirs.

Even now, the defendants continue to conceal the circumstances the institution came into possession of the piece; the family's possession of the Painting from several years; and the facts that the regime looted the Painting from the Stern family, forced the couple into disposing of it via a Nazi-appointed agent, and confiscated the money of the transaction.

Prior Cases

The descendants initiated a related lawsuit in California in recently, but it was dismissed in 2024. An further action was also rejected in spring 2025.

Institution's Statement

The lawsuit contends that the institution's buying of the artwork was approved by a curator, the institution's specialist of European paintings and a leading authority on Nazi-era looted art. Rousseau and the Met must have known that the masterpiece had likely been seized by the regime.

The institution said in a statement that it takes seriously its historical dedication to address issues related to WWII.

A spokesperson stated: Never during the institution's custody of the painting was there any documentation that it had once belonged to the heirs – actually, that knowledge did not become accessible until many years after the painting left the institution's holdings.

The museum's disposal of the artwork met the Met's guidelines for removal from collection – namely, it was recorded that the work was considered to be of lesser quality than other pieces of the similar kind in the collection. While the institution upholds its stance that this piece entered the inventory and was sold legally and well within all standards and procedures, the institution invites and will examine any further evidence that emerges.

BEG's Response

William Charron acting for the foundation commented: The Goulandris Foundation is a highly prestigious organization in Greece. The effort to litigate and defame the institution and the Goulandris family in the America upon inaccurate and partial claims was earlier rejected, on two occasions. We are convinced it will be again.