🔗 Share this article

The heirs of a Jewish pair have initiated legal proceedings against The Metropolitan Museum of Art, claiming that a Van Gogh art piece was stolen by the Nazis.

Historical Background

Per the lawsuit, Hedwig and Frederick Stern bought the painting, titled Olive Harvest, in 1935. A year after, they were obliged to escape their residence in the German city of Munich on the eve of WWII.

The suit argues that the institution, which acquired the masterpiece in the mid-1950s for a significant sum, ought to have been aware it was probably looted property. The heirs are now seeking the return of the painting along with compensation.

Since the end of WWII, this Nazi-looted painting has been often and discreetly exchanged, acquired and disposed of in and through NYC, states the court document.

Family's Flight

The Sterns escaped from their Munich home to America in the late 1930s with their large family due to persecution by the Nazis. Yet, they were prevented from taking the Van Gogh piece, which was painted by the renowned Dutch in the late 19th century.

Before the family's emigration, Nazi authorities designated the painting as a German cultural asset and banned the family from bringing it with them. After obtaining permission from a regime representative, a trustee assigned by the authorities sold the piece on the couple's behalf. However, the money from the auction were deposited in a frozen account, which the authorities later confiscated.

Post-War History

By 1948, or not long after, the canvas entered the United States and was purchased by a wealthy American, a member of the Astor family. Eventually, it was exchanged through a gallery to the institution, which then passed it on to wealthy Greek businessman Basil Goulandris and his partner, Elise, in the early 1970s.

Basil and Elise set up the BEG in 1979, which manages a museum in the Greek capital where the artwork is currently exhibited.

Court Allegations

The foundation and a surviving nephew of Basil Goulandris are named as defendants. The legal action states that the family and its related entities have concealed and disguised the painting's ownership and whereabouts from the plaintiffs.

Even now, the defendants continue to conceal the manner and time the foundation came into ownership of the piece; the couple's ownership of the Painting from the mid-1930s; and the reality that the regime looted the artwork from the heirs, pressured the Sterns into parting with it via a regime representative, and seized the money of the deal.

Previous Legal Action

The Stern heirs submitted a similar complaint in the state of California in recently, but it was dismissed in the following years. An legal challenge was also rejected in May 2025.

The Met's Position

The legal action contends that the institution's buying of the painting was authorized by Theodore Rousseau Jr, the museum's curator of Old Masters and one of the world's foremost experts on art theft during the Nazi era. The curator and the museum were aware or ought to have been aware that the Painting had likely been looted by the Nazis.

The museum issued a statement that it is committed to its ongoing pledge to resolve Nazi-era claims.

A spokesperson stated: At no time during The Met's ownership of the artwork was there any record that it had earlier been possessed to the family – in fact, that data did not become available until many years after the masterpiece left the institution's holdings.

The Met's sale of the Van Gogh met the Met's guidelines for deaccessioning – specifically, it was documented that the artwork was deemed to be of inferior standard than additional artworks of the similar kind in the collection. While the institution respectfully stands by its position that this artwork entered the holdings and was removed properly and well within all rules and regulations, the museum is open to and will review any further evidence that comes to light.

BEG's Response

William Charron representing the foundation stated: The institution is a renowned institution in Greece. The attempt to litigate and defame the Foundation and the Goulandris family in the United States upon inaccurate and partial claims was already thrown out, twice. We are certain it will be a third time.