🔗 Share this article

The family members of a Jewish spouses have brought a case against The Metropolitan Museum of Art, claiming that a the Dutch artist canvas was stolen by the Third Reich.

Historical Background

According to the lawsuit, the Stern couple bought the painting, titled Gathering Olives, in the mid-1930s. The following year, they were obliged to escape their residence in the German city of Munich prior to WWII.

The suit states that the Met, which obtained the masterpiece in 1956 for one hundred twenty-five thousand dollars, ought to have been aware it was likely stolen property. The heirs are now demanding the return of the painting along with compensation.

Following the war, this plundered piece has been frequently and covertly traded, bought and sold in and through New York, claims the legal filing.

Forced Emigration

The Sterns escaped from Munich to America in 1936 with their large family due to Nazi persecution. Nevertheless, they were unable to bring the painting, which was painted by the Dutch post-impressionist in the late 19th century.

Prior to their departure, Nazi authorities classified the painting as property of the state and banned the Sterns from taking it abroad. After obtaining permission from a Nazi official, a representative designated by the regime sold the piece on the Sterns' behalf. However, the money from the auction were deposited in a blocked account, which the authorities later took.

Post-War History

By 1948, or not long after, the canvas arrived in the United States and was acquired by Vincent Astor, one of America's wealthiest people. Later, it was exchanged through a gallery to the institution, which then passed it on to prominent shipowner Basil Goulandris and his wife, Mrs. Goulandris, in 1972.

Basil and Elise founded the Goulandris Foundation in 1979, which operates a museum in Athens, Greece where the masterpiece is currently exhibited.

Claims and Defenses

The foundation and a living relative of Goulandris are identified in the suit. The filing claims that the defendants and its affiliates have hidden and obscured the artwork's provenance and current place from the plaintiffs.

Currently, the Goulandris Defendants continue to hide how and when the BEG came into control of the artwork; the family's possession of the Painting from the mid-1930s; and the reality that the Third Reich looted the canvas from the Stern family, pressured the couple into parting with it via a Nazi-appointed agent, and seized the money of the deal.

Previous Legal Action

The family filed a similar complaint in California in the year 2022, but it was thrown out in the following years. An further action was also denied in spring 2025.

The Met's Position

The lawsuit contends that the Met's purchase of the artwork was approved by the museum's expert, the institution's specialist of European paintings and one of the world's foremost experts on Nazi art looting. The curator and the museum knew or should have known that the masterpiece had probably been looted by the regime.

The Met said in a statement that it takes seriously its longstanding commitment to resolve claims from the Nazi period.

A representative remarked: Never during The Met's ownership of the piece was there any documentation that it had previously been owned to the heirs – indeed, that information did not become accessible until many years after the painting left the Met's possession.

The Met's sale of the Van Gogh met the institution's rigorous standards for deaccessioning – specifically, it was recorded that the piece was deemed to be of lesser quality than other works of the similar kind in the inventory. While the museum upholds its view that this piece entered the collection and was removed properly and well within all guidelines and policies, the Met invites and will examine any additional details that emerges.

BEG's Response

William Charron representing BEG said: The institution is a renowned institution in Greece. The effort to litigate and defame the institution and the Goulandris family in the America upon inaccurate and partial claims was already thrown out, on two occasions. We are confident it will be a third time.