🔗 Share this article

The heirs of a Jewish spouses have initiated legal proceedings against The Met, alleging that a the Dutch artist oil painting was seized by the Third Reich.

Historical Background

As stated in the legal filing, Hedwig and Frederick Stern bought the artwork, titled Gathering Olives, in the year 1935. The following year, they were compelled to leave their dwelling in Munich, Germany prior to the Second World War.

The legal action states that the institution, which acquired the masterpiece in the 1950s for a significant sum, must have realized it was almost certainly confiscated property. The descendants are now demanding the restitution of the painting along with damages.

In the decades since the war, this plundered piece has been frequently and covertly traded, acquired and disposed of in and through New York, alleges the lawsuit.

Forced Emigration

The Sterns escaped from Munich to America in 1936 with their offspring due to persecution by the Nazis. However, they were unable to bring the painting, which was created by the celebrated artist in 1889.

Prior to their departure, the regime designated the painting as property of the state and banned the couple from taking it abroad. After obtaining permission from a regime representative, a agent appointed by the regime disposed of the artwork on the couple's behalf. But, the proceeds from the auction were deposited in a frozen account, which the Nazis later confiscated.

Post-War History

In 1948, or not long after, the canvas arrived in New York and was acquired by a prominent figure, among the richest individuals in the US. Subsequently, it was exchanged through a gallery to the institution, which then sold it to Greek shipping magnate Goulandris and his spouse, Elise, in 1972.

Basil and Elise established the Basil & Elise Goulandris Foundation in the late 1970s, which operates a institution in the Greek capital where the artwork is currently shown.

Legal Arguments

The foundation and a family member of the magnate are identified in the suit. The lawsuit alleges that the family and its affiliates have hidden and obscured the painting's ownership and whereabouts from the plaintiffs.

To this day, the defendants continue to obscure the circumstances the BEG came into control of the artwork; the Stern family's ownership of the masterpiece from the mid-1930s; and the reality that the regime looted the artwork from the family, pressured the family into disposing of it via a trustee, and took the funds of the sale.

Earlier Lawsuits

The descendants initiated a similar complaint in CA in the year 2022, but it was rejected in 2024. An further action was also rejected in recently.

The Met's Position

The lawsuit states that the Met's purchase of the artwork was approved by the museum's expert, the Met's authority of European paintings and a renowned specialist on art theft during the Nazi era. The curator and the museum were aware or ought to have been aware that the artwork had likely been seized by the Nazis.

The museum responded that it is committed to its longstanding commitment to handle claims from the Nazi period.

A spokesperson commented: Never during The Met's ownership of the piece was there any evidence that it had previously been owned to the heirs – in fact, that information did not become known until several decades after the masterpiece left the Met's possession.

The institution's deaccessioning of the Van Gogh met the Met's guidelines for deaccessioning – in particular, it was noted that the piece was deemed to be of lesser quality than additional artworks of the comparable nature in the inventory. Even though The Met maintains its stance that this piece entered the holdings and was sold properly and well within all standards and procedures, the institution welcomes and will consider any additional details that comes to light.

BEG's Response

William Charron representing the foundation commented: The institution is a renowned institution in Athens. The attempt to sue and smear the institution and the family in the US upon inaccurate and partial claims was earlier rejected, multiple times. We are convinced it will be again.