🔗 Share this article

The heirs of a Jewish couple have brought a case against The Metropolitan Museum of Art, claiming that a Van Gogh art piece was stolen by Nazi forces.

Historical Background

As stated in the lawsuit, the Stern couple bought the piece, titled Olive Harvest, in the year 1935. A year after, they were forced to flee their dwelling in the German city of Munich on the eve of WWII.

The legal action argues that the institution, which purchased the artwork in 1956 for one hundred twenty-five thousand dollars, must have realized it was almost certainly stolen property. The descendants are now seeking the return of the canvas along with financial restitution.

In the decades since WWII, this plundered piece has been frequently and covertly traded, bought and sold in and through the city of New York, claims the court document.

Family's Flight

The Stern family departed from Munich to America in the late 1930s with their offspring due to the oppressive Nazi regime. However, they were unable to bring the painting, which was produced by the renowned Dutch in 1889.

Before the family's emigration, the Nazi government declared the painting as German cultural property and prohibited the couple from bringing it with them. After obtaining permission from a Nazi official, a agent designated by the authorities sold the artwork on the family's behalf. However, the proceeds from the sale were placed in a blocked account, which the authorities later took.

Later Transactions

In 1948, or shortly after, the artwork arrived in the United States and was purchased by a prominent figure, one of America's wealthiest people. Subsequently, it was sold through a commercial outlet to the museum, which then transferred it to prominent shipowner Basil Goulandris and his partner, Elise, in 1972.

The Goulandris pair set up the Basil & Elise Goulandris Foundation in the late 1970s, which manages a museum in Athens where the masterpiece is currently on display.

Claims and Defenses

The institution and a surviving nephew of the magnate are identified in the suit. The legal action claims that the family and its affiliates have hidden and obscured the painting's ownership and whereabouts from the plaintiffs.

To this day, the Goulandris Defendants continue to conceal the manner and time the foundation came into ownership of the piece; the couple's ownership of the Painting from 1935 to 1938; and the truth that the regime stole the canvas from the Stern family, pressured the Sterns into selling it via a trustee, and took the proceeds of the transaction.

Prior Cases

The descendants submitted a related lawsuit in California in recently, but it was thrown out in 2024. An further action 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-era looted art. The curator and the museum must have known that the Painting had likely been looted by Nazis.

The Met issued a statement that it is committed to its historical dedication to address claims from the Nazi period.

An official stated: Never during the institution's custody of the piece was there any evidence that it had previously been owned to the family – actually, that knowledge did not become known until many years after the artwork left the Museum's collection.

The Met's sale of the Van Gogh met the museum's strict criteria for disposal – in particular, it was noted that the piece was deemed to be of lower caliber than other works of the same type in the collection. While the museum respectfully stands by its position that this piece entered the holdings and was deaccessioned legally and well within all rules and regulations, the Met welcomes and will consider any new information that comes to light.

BEG's Response

A lawyer acting for the foundation commented: BEG is a highly prestigious organization in the Greek capital. The attempt to litigate and defame the institution and the defendants in the United States upon inaccurate and partial claims was previously dismissed, twice. We are certain it will be once more.