🔗 Share this article

The heirs of a Jewish pair have brought a case against New York's Metropolitan Museum, claiming that a Vincent van Gogh art piece was stolen by the Nazis.

Case History

Per the legal filing, the Stern couple purchased the piece, titled Gathering Olives, in the mid-1930s. The following year, they were obliged to escape their dwelling in Munich, Germany prior to World War II.

The complaint states that the museum, which acquired the masterpiece in 1956 for a significant sum, ought to have been aware it was almost certainly confiscated property. The family are now seeking the return 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, alleges the lawsuit.

The Sterns' Escape

The Stern family fled from Munich to California in 1936 with their offspring due to Nazi persecution. Yet, they were unable to bring the Van Gogh piece, which was produced by the celebrated artist in 1889.

Before the family's emigration, the Nazi government classified the artwork as property of the state and forbade the Sterns from exporting it. Following authorization from a Nazi official, a agent appointed by the Nazis auctioned the painting on the family's behalf. But, the funds from the auction were held in a blocked account, which the authorities later took.

Subsequent Ownership

Around 1948, or soon after, the artwork entered NYC and was bought by Vincent Astor, one of America's wealthiest people. Subsequently, it was exchanged through a gallery to the institution, which then passed it on to Greek shipping magnate Goulandris and his partner, Elise Goulandris, in the early 1970s.

The Greek couple set up the Basil & Elise Goulandris Foundation in 1979, which runs a gallery in Athens, Greece where the artwork is currently exhibited.

Court Allegations

The institution and a family member of Goulandris are named as defendants. The lawsuit states that the Goulandris family and its related entities have concealed and disguised the artwork's provenance and whereabouts from the heirs.

To this day, the defendants continue to obscure the circumstances the institution came into ownership of the artwork; the couple's ownership of the Painting from the mid-1930s; and the reality that the Nazis confiscated the artwork from the family, pressured the couple into disposing of it via a trustee, and confiscated the funds of the transaction.

Previous Legal Action

The family filed a similar complaint in California in the year 2022, but it was dismissed in 2024. An legal challenge was also dismissed in recently.

The Met's Position

The legal action contends that the institution's buying of the painting was authorized by Theodore Rousseau Jr, the institution's specialist of Old Masters and a leading authority on Nazi-era looted art. The curator and the museum knew or should have known that the masterpiece had likely been stolen by the Nazis.

The institution said in a statement that it takes seriously its historical dedication to resolve Nazi-era claims.

A spokesperson stated: At no time during the institution's custody of the piece was there any record that it had earlier been possessed to the heirs – actually, that knowledge did not become known until many years after the masterpiece left the Museum's collection.

The museum's disposal of the artwork met the museum's strict criteria for deaccessioning – in particular, it was recorded that the work was considered to be of inferior standard than additional artworks of the comparable nature in the holdings. Even though the museum maintains its stance that this work entered the collection and was sold properly and well within all rules and regulations, the museum welcomes and will consider any additional details that emerges.

BEG's Response

A lawyer acting for the foundation stated: The Goulandris Foundation is a highly prestigious organization in Greece. The action to litigate and defame the institution and the Goulandris family in the US upon deceptive and insufficient accusations was earlier rejected, twice. We are certain it will be again.