🔗 Share this article

The family members of a Jewish spouses have brought a case against The Metropolitan Museum of Art, alleging that a the Dutch artist art piece was seized by Nazi forces.

Historical Background

As stated in the legal filing, the Stern couple acquired the piece, titled Olive Picking, in the mid-1930s. The following year, they were compelled to leave their dwelling in Munich, Germany prior to the Second World War.

The suit states that the Met, which obtained the painting in 1956 for $125,000, ought to have been aware it was almost certainly looted property. The family are now requesting the return of the canvas along with damages.

In the decades since WWII, this plundered piece has been repeatedly and secretly trafficked, acquired and disposed of in and through the city of New York, alleges the legal filing.

The Sterns' Escape

The Stern family fled from their Munich home to America in the late 1930s with their large family due to persecution by the Nazis. Nevertheless, they were prevented from taking the artwork, which was produced by the celebrated artist in the late 19th century.

Before they left, the regime designated the masterpiece as German cultural property and prohibited the family from bringing it with them. Following authorization from a Third Reich agent, a trustee designated by the authorities sold the artwork on the couple's behalf. However, the money from the sale were placed in a blocked account, which the authorities later took.

Later Transactions

In 1948, or not long after, the artwork entered the United States and was acquired by a wealthy American, one of America's wealthiest people. Later, it was sold through a commercial outlet to the museum, which then sold it to wealthy Greek businessman the magnate and his spouse, Elise Goulandris, in 1972.

Basil and Elise set up the BEG in 1979, which manages a gallery in Athens, Greece where the painting is currently shown.

Claims and Defenses

The foundation and a living relative of Basil Goulandris are listed as respondents. The legal action alleges that the Goulandris family and its related entities have covered up the masterpiece's history and whereabouts from the heirs.

To this day, the Goulandris Defendants continue to conceal the manner and time the BEG came into ownership of the artwork; the Stern family's ownership of the artwork from several years; and the truth that the Third Reich stole the Painting from the heirs, coerced the Sterns into parting with it via a Nazi-appointed agent, and confiscated the funds of the transaction.

Previous Legal Action

The family initiated a comparable case in CA in recently, but it was rejected in 2024. An further action was also dismissed in recently.

Institution's Statement

The complaint contends that the Met's purchase of the painting was approved by a curator, the museum's curator of European paintings and one of the world's foremost experts on Nazi art looting. Rousseau and the Met must have known that the Painting had likely been looted by the Nazis.

The Met said in a statement that it prioritizes its ongoing pledge to address Nazi-era claims.

An official remarked: Not once during The Met's ownership of the painting was there any documentation that it had earlier been possessed to the family – indeed, that information did not become known until many years after the painting left the Museum's collection.

The museum's disposal of the Van Gogh met the institution's rigorous standards for removal from collection – in particular, it was documented that the work was judged to be of lesser quality than additional artworks of the comparable nature in the holdings. Although the museum upholds its view that this work entered the collection and was deaccessioned lawfully and well within all rules and regulations, the institution is open to and will review any additional details that comes to light.

Foundation's Defense

William Charron acting for BEG said: The Goulandris Foundation is a highly prestigious organization in Greece. The effort to take legal action against the organization and the defendants in the US upon inaccurate and partial claims was previously dismissed, on two occasions. We are convinced it will be again.