🔗 Share this article

The descendants of a Jewish pair have initiated legal proceedings against The Met, alleging that a the Dutch artist canvas was seized by the Nazis.

Case History

According to the legal filing, the Stern couple bought the painting, titled Olive Harvest, in the year 1935. The following year, they were obliged to escape their dwelling in Munich, Germany just before the Second World War.

The suit states that the Met, which obtained the artwork in 1956 for $125,000, ought to have been aware it was almost certainly stolen property. The heirs are now seeking the repatriation of the artwork along with financial restitution.

In the decades since the war, this stolen artwork has been repeatedly and secretly trafficked, acquired and disposed of in and through NYC, states the lawsuit.

The Sterns' Escape

Hedwig and Frederick Stern departed from Munich to the United States in the late 1930s with their six children due to Nazi persecution. Nevertheless, they were barred from transporting the painting, which was painted by the renowned Dutch in the late 19th century.

Before the family's emigration, the Nazi government classified the masterpiece as German cultural property and forbade the couple from bringing it with them. After obtaining permission from a regime representative, a trustee assigned by the authorities sold the piece on the couple's behalf. But, the funds from the auction were deposited in a frozen account, which the regime later took.

Later Transactions

In 1948, or shortly after, the artwork entered the United States and was acquired by Vincent Astor, a member of the Astor family. Eventually, it was sold through a art dealer to the Met, which then sold it to wealthy Greek businessman the magnate and his spouse, Elise Goulandris, in the early 1970s.

The Greek couple founded the Basil & Elise Goulandris Foundation in the late 1970s, which operates a institution in the Greek capital where the artwork is currently exhibited.

Legal Arguments

BEG and a surviving nephew of the magnate are named as defendants. The filing claims that the Goulandris family and its associated organizations have concealed and disguised the painting's ownership and location from the plaintiffs.

Currently, the foundation continue to conceal how and when the institution came into possession of the artwork; the couple's ownership of the Painting from 1935 to 1938; and the facts that the Third Reich confiscated the canvas from the family, coerced the family into selling it via a trustee, and confiscated the proceeds of the deal.

Previous Legal Action

The descendants submitted a comparable case in CA in the year 2022, but it was thrown out in 2024. An appeal was also denied in recently.

Institution's Statement

The lawsuit argues that the institution's buying of the piece was approved by a curator, the Met's authority of European paintings and a renowned specialist on Nazi-era looted art. The curator and the museum knew or should have known that the artwork had probably been seized by the regime.

The institution responded that it prioritizes its longstanding commitment to address issues related to WWII.

An official stated: Not once during the museum's possession of the artwork was there any evidence that it had previously been owned to the Stern family – indeed, that knowledge did not become available until several decades after the artwork left the institution's holdings.

The institution's deaccessioning of the Van Gogh met the museum's strict criteria for disposal – specifically, it was documented that the artwork was considered to be of inferior standard than additional artworks of the comparable nature in the holdings. Even though the institution maintains its position that this artwork entered the collection and was deaccessioned lawfully and well within all guidelines and policies, the Met invites and will examine any further evidence that comes to light.

Foundation's Defense

William Charron representing the Goulandris Foundation said: The institution is a highly prestigious organization in the Greek capital. The action to sue and smear the organization and the defendants in the America upon misleadingly incomplete allegations was already thrown out, on two occasions. We are certain it will be again.