🔗 Share this article

The heirs of a Jewish spouses have filed a lawsuit against The Metropolitan Museum of Art, alleging that a Vincent van Gogh oil painting was stolen by the Third Reich.

Case History

As stated in the court documents, Hedwig and Frederick Stern acquired the artwork, titled Olive Picking, in 1935. Just one year later, they were obliged to escape their residence in Munich, Germany on the eve of World War II.

The complaint argues that the museum, which purchased the masterpiece in the mid-1950s for one hundred twenty-five thousand dollars, ought to have been aware it was probably confiscated property. The descendants are now seeking the return of the painting along with damages.

In the decades since WWII, this stolen artwork has been repeatedly and secretly trafficked, acquired and disposed of in and through New York, states the lawsuit.

Forced Emigration

The Stern family departed from their Munich home to California in 1936 with their six children due to Nazi persecution. Yet, they were unable to bring the artwork, which was produced by the celebrated artist in the late 19th century.

Before the family's emigration, the Nazi government classified the masterpiece as property of the state and forbade the family from exporting it. After obtaining permission from a Third Reich agent, a representative appointed by the regime auctioned the piece on the family's behalf. But, the proceeds from the transaction were placed in a blocked account, which the authorities later confiscated.

Post-War History

In 1948, or soon after, the painting entered NYC and was purchased by a wealthy American, among the richest individuals in the US. Eventually, it was sold through a commercial outlet to the institution, which then passed it on to prominent shipowner the magnate and his spouse, Mrs. Goulandris, in 1972.

The Greek couple set up the BEG in 1979, which manages a museum in the Greek capital where the masterpiece is currently on display.

Court Allegations

BEG and a surviving nephew of the magnate are identified in the suit. The filing alleges that the defendants and its affiliates have concealed and disguised the painting's ownership and whereabouts from the heirs.

Even now, the defendants continue to hide how and when the foundation came into ownership of the piece; the couple's ownership of the artwork from several years; and the facts that the regime stole the canvas from the family, forced the family into parting with it via a regime representative, and seized the proceeds of the deal.

Previous Legal Action

The Stern heirs filed a related lawsuit in the state of California in 2022, but it was thrown out in the following years. An appeal was also rejected in recently.

The Met's Position

The complaint states that the Met's purchase of the painting was approved by the museum's expert, the museum's curator of European art and a leading authority on art theft during the Nazi era. Rousseau and the Met must have known that the artwork had likely been stolen by Nazis.

The museum said in a statement that it prioritizes its historical dedication to resolve claims from the Nazi period.

A representative remarked: At no time during the museum's possession of the painting was there any record that it had previously been owned to the heirs – in fact, that data did not become known until several decades after the painting left the Met's possession.

The museum's disposal of the artwork met the museum's strict criteria for disposal – in particular, it was noted that the piece was deemed to be of inferior standard than other pieces of the same type in the collection. While the museum upholds its stance that this piece entered the inventory and was sold legally and well within all rules and regulations, the institution invites and will examine any additional details that comes to light.

Goulandris Statement

William Charron acting for the Goulandris Foundation stated: The Goulandris Foundation is a esteemed foundation in Athens. The action to sue and smear the institution and the family in the America upon misleadingly incomplete allegations was earlier rejected, twice. We are confident it will be again.