🔗 Share this article

The heirs of a Jewish spouses have initiated legal proceedings against The Met, alleging that a Vincent van Gogh art piece was stolen by the Third Reich.

Origins of the Dispute

Per the lawsuit, Frederick and Hedwig Stern bought the piece, titled Gathering Olives, in the mid-1930s. The following year, they were compelled to leave their home in Munich just before WWII.

The suit contends that the museum, which obtained the masterpiece in 1956 for $125,000, ought to have been aware it was almost certainly confiscated property. The heirs are now seeking the repatriation of the artwork along with financial restitution.

Since the end of WWII, this plundered piece has been often and discreetly exchanged, purchased and sold in and through NYC, alleges the legal filing.

The Sterns' Escape

Hedwig and Frederick Stern departed from the city of Munich to America in the late 1930s with their six children due to the oppressive Nazi regime. Nevertheless, they were prevented from taking the artwork, which was created by the Dutch post-impressionist in 1889.

Before they left, the regime classified the masterpiece as German cultural property and prohibited the couple from taking it abroad. Following authorization from a Third Reich agent, a trustee assigned by the Nazis disposed of the artwork on the family's behalf. But, the proceeds from the transaction were deposited in a frozen account, which the Nazis later took.

Later Transactions

In 1948, or not long after, the painting was brought to New York and was purchased by a prominent figure, one of America's wealthiest people. Later, it was exchanged through a gallery to the Met, which then passed it on to Greek shipping magnate Basil Goulandris and his spouse, Mrs. Goulandris, in 1972.

The Goulandris pair founded the BEG in 1979, which runs a gallery in Athens where the painting is currently exhibited.

Claims and Defenses

The institution and a living relative of Goulandris are named as defendants. The filing states that the family and its related entities have hidden and obscured the masterpiece's history and current place from the plaintiffs.

Even now, the foundation continue to obscure how and when the BEG came into possession of the artwork; the family's possession of the masterpiece from several years; and the reality that the Nazis looted the artwork from the heirs, forced the couple into selling it via a trustee, and took the money of the deal.

Prior Cases

The descendants submitted a related lawsuit in CA in the year 2022, but it was rejected in the following years. An further action was also rejected in spring 2025.

Museum's Response

The complaint states that the institution's buying of the painting was sanctioned by a curator, the Met's authority of European paintings and a leading authority 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 seized by the Nazis.

The institution issued a statement that it is committed to its historical dedication to address issues related to WWII.

A representative remarked: Not once during the museum's possession of the artwork was there any evidence that it had previously been owned to the heirs – indeed, that information did not become known until several decades after the masterpiece left the institution's holdings.

The institution's deaccessioning of the artwork met the museum's strict criteria for deaccessioning – namely, it was recorded that the work was judged to be of inferior standard than additional artworks of the similar kind in the collection. Even though The Met upholds its position that this piece entered the collection and was removed lawfully and well within all guidelines and policies, the institution is open to and will review any additional details that emerges.

BEG's Response

A lawyer on behalf of the Goulandris Foundation commented: The Goulandris Foundation is a renowned institution in the Greek capital. The effort to take legal action against the institution and the Goulandris family in the US upon misleadingly incomplete allegations was earlier rejected, multiple times. We are confident it will be a third time.