🔗 Share this article

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

Origins of the Dispute

According to the lawsuit, the Stern couple acquired the artwork, titled Gathering Olives, in the mid-1930s. Just one year later, they were obliged to escape their home in Munich on the eve of World War II.

The complaint states that the institution, which acquired the painting in the 1950s for a significant sum, must have realized it was almost certainly looted property. The family are now requesting the repatriation of the painting along with compensation.

In the decades since World War II, this stolen artwork has been repeatedly and secretly trafficked, acquired and disposed of in and through the city of New York, claims the court document.

Forced Emigration

The Stern family escaped from Munich to America in the late 1930s with their six children due to Nazi persecution. Nevertheless, they were unable to bring the painting, which was painted by the celebrated artist in 1889.

Before they left, the Nazi government classified the painting as property of the state and prohibited the Sterns from taking it abroad. After obtaining permission from a Third Reich agent, a agent assigned by the Nazis disposed of the artwork on the couple's behalf. Yet, the funds from the transaction were deposited in a restricted account, which the regime later confiscated.

Post-War History

In 1948, or shortly after, the canvas was brought to New York and was bought by a prominent figure, among the richest individuals in the US. Subsequently, it was transferred through a art dealer to the museum, which then passed it on to prominent shipowner the magnate and his wife, Elise Goulandris, in 1972.

The Greek couple set up the Basil & Elise Goulandris Foundation in 1979, which operates a gallery in the Greek capital where the masterpiece is currently on display.

Legal Arguments

BEG and a living relative of the magnate are named as defendants. The filing claims that the Goulandris family and its affiliates have hidden and obscured the painting's ownership and location from the family.

Even now, the Goulandris Defendants continue to obscure the circumstances the institution came into possession of the Painting; the family's possession of the masterpiece from 1935 to 1938; and the truth that the regime looted the Painting from the family, pressured the family into selling it via a regime representative, and confiscated the money of the deal.

Earlier Lawsuits

The descendants initiated a related lawsuit in CA in recently, but it was dismissed in 2024. An appeal was also rejected in recently.

Institution's Statement

The legal action states that the Met's purchase of the piece was approved by Theodore Rousseau Jr, the institution's specialist of European art and a leading authority on Nazi art looting. Rousseau and the Met were aware or ought to have been aware that the masterpiece had likely been looted by the Nazis.

The institution said in a statement that it is committed to its longstanding commitment to address Nazi-era claims.

A representative remarked: Never during The Met's ownership of the piece was there any evidence that it had once belonged to the heirs – in fact, that data did not become available until a long time after the artwork left the institution's holdings.

The institution's deaccessioning of the artwork met the institution's rigorous standards for disposal – namely, it was recorded that the artwork was judged to be of inferior standard than additional artworks of the comparable nature in the collection. While the institution upholds its position that this piece entered the collection and was sold lawfully and well within all rules and regulations, the institution welcomes and will consider any new information that is discovered.

Goulandris Statement

A lawyer acting for BEG said: BEG is a esteemed foundation in Greece. The effort to take legal action against the Foundation and the defendants in the America upon misleadingly incomplete allegations was earlier rejected, on two occasions. We are confident it will be once more.