🔗 Share this article

The family members of a Jewish spouses have initiated legal proceedings against The Met, claiming that a Van Gogh oil painting was seized by Nazi forces.

Case History

As stated in the legal filing, Frederick and Hedwig Stern bought the piece, titled Olive Picking, in the mid-1930s. A year after, they were forced to flee their dwelling in Munich prior to the Second World War.

The suit argues that the museum, which obtained the painting in 1956 for a significant sum, should have known it was likely confiscated property. The family are now requesting the repatriation of the painting along with financial restitution.

In the decades since WWII, this Nazi-looted painting has been frequently and covertly traded, acquired and disposed of in and through NYC, states the lawsuit.

Forced Emigration

Hedwig and Frederick Stern fled from their Munich home to America in the late 1930s with their offspring due to Nazi persecution. Nevertheless, they were prevented from taking the artwork, which was produced by the Dutch post-impressionist in the late 19th century.

Prior to their departure, the Nazi government designated the artwork as a German cultural asset and forbade the Sterns from exporting it. After obtaining permission from a regime representative, a representative designated by the authorities disposed of the piece on the couple's behalf. But, the proceeds from the transaction were held in a restricted account, which the regime later confiscated.

Post-War History

Around 1948, or soon after, the painting arrived in NYC and was bought by a wealthy American, a member of the Astor family. Subsequently, it was exchanged through a commercial outlet to the museum, which then transferred it to wealthy Greek businessman the magnate and his partner, Elise, in the early 1970s.

The Greek couple set up the Goulandris Foundation in 1979, which operates a institution in Athens where the painting is currently exhibited.

Court Allegations

The institution and a family member of the magnate are listed as respondents. The legal action claims that the defendants and its related entities have hidden and obscured the painting's ownership and location from the plaintiffs.

Currently, the defendants continue to hide the manner and time the institution came into ownership of the artwork; the family's possession of the Painting from 1935 to 1938; and the reality that the Third Reich stole the Painting from the heirs, coerced the family into selling it via a Nazi-appointed agent, and seized the proceeds of the sale.

Previous Legal Action

The family submitted a comparable case in the state of California in 2022, but it was dismissed in the following years. An appeal was also rejected in May 2025.

Institution's Statement

The legal action argues that the Met's purchase of the piece was sanctioned by the museum's expert, the institution's specialist of European art and a renowned specialist on art theft during the Nazi era. The institution and its expert were aware or ought to have been aware that the masterpiece had almost certainly been stolen by the Nazis.

The Met issued a statement that it prioritizes its historical dedication to handle issues related to WWII.

A spokesperson commented: At no time during The Met's ownership of the painting was there any record that it had once belonged to the family – in fact, that data did not become available until several decades after the masterpiece left the Museum's collection.

The Met's sale of the Van Gogh met the institution's rigorous standards for removal from collection – namely, it was noted that the work was considered to be of inferior standard than other pieces of the same type in the holdings. Even though the institution maintains its stance that this work entered the collection and was sold lawfully and well within all guidelines and policies, the museum is open to and will review any additional details that comes to light.

BEG's Response

A lawyer acting for the foundation commented: BEG is a highly prestigious organization in Greece. The attempt to take legal action against the organization and the defendants in the America upon misleadingly incomplete allegations was already thrown out, on two occasions. We are convinced it will be once more.