🔗 Share this article

The family members of a Jewish pair have filed a lawsuit against The Metropolitan Museum of Art, asserting that a the Dutch artist canvas was looted by the Nazis.

Origins of the Dispute

As stated in the lawsuit, Hedwig and Frederick Stern purchased the artwork, titled Olive Picking, in 1935. The following year, they were compelled to leave their residence in Munich prior to World War II.

The complaint states that the Met, which obtained the masterpiece in the 1950s for one hundred twenty-five thousand dollars, should have known it was likely confiscated property. The heirs are now requesting the restitution of the painting along with damages.

In the decades since WWII, this Nazi-looted painting has been often and discreetly exchanged, purchased and sold in and through the city of New York, states the lawsuit.

Family's Flight

The Stern family fled from Munich to the United States in the late 1930s with their large family due to persecution by the Nazis. However, they were unable to bring the Van Gogh piece, which was produced by the celebrated artist in 1889.

Before they left, the regime designated the artwork as property of the state and forbade the couple from exporting it. Once approved from a Nazi official, a representative assigned by the regime sold the artwork on the Sterns' behalf. However, the funds from the sale were deposited in a frozen account, which the authorities later seized.

Subsequent Ownership

By 1948, or not long after, the artwork arrived in New York and was bought by Vincent Astor, one of America's wealthiest people. Later, it was sold through a commercial outlet to the museum, which then passed it on to Greek shipping magnate Basil Goulandris and his spouse, Elise Goulandris, in 1972.

The Goulandris pair established the BEG in 1979, which manages a museum in Athens, Greece where the artwork is currently exhibited.

Legal Arguments

BEG and a surviving nephew of the magnate are identified in the suit. The lawsuit states that the Goulandris family and its related entities have hidden and obscured the artwork's provenance and current place from the family.

To this day, the defendants continue to obscure the circumstances the foundation came into control of the Painting; the couple's ownership of the artwork from several years; and the facts that the Third Reich confiscated the artwork from the heirs, forced the couple into selling it via a trustee, and took the funds of the transaction.

Earlier Lawsuits

The family submitted a related lawsuit in the state of California in 2022, but it was thrown out in the following years. An further action was also dismissed in May 2025.

Museum's Response

The complaint argues that the museum's acquisition of the painting was approved by the museum's expert, the Met's authority of European paintings and a renowned specialist on art theft during the Nazi era. Rousseau and the Met were aware or ought to have been aware that the masterpiece had almost certainly been stolen by Nazis.

The museum responded that it is committed to its ongoing pledge to address claims from the Nazi period.

A representative stated: Never during The Met's ownership of the painting was there any record that it had previously been owned to the Stern family – in fact, that data did not become accessible until several decades after the masterpiece left the Met's possession.

The museum's disposal of the Van Gogh met the Met's guidelines for disposal – namely, it was documented that the piece was deemed to be of inferior standard than other pieces of the similar kind in the holdings. While the institution respectfully stands by its position that this piece entered the holdings and was sold legally and well within all standards and procedures, the Met is open to and will review any additional details that is discovered.

Goulandris Statement

Legal counsel representing the Goulandris Foundation stated: The Goulandris Foundation is a renowned institution in the Greek capital. The effort to sue and smear the Foundation and the Goulandris family in the America upon inaccurate and partial claims was earlier rejected, on two occasions. We are certain it will be once more.