Metropolitan Museum Responds to Lawsuit Over Supposedly Nazi-Stolen Van Gogh Artwork

The descendants of a Jewish couple have initiated legal proceedings against The Metropolitan Museum of Art, claiming that a Vincent van Gogh art piece was looted by the Third Reich.

Case History

Per the legal filing, Hedwig and Frederick Stern purchased the piece, titled Olive Picking, in the year 1935. The following year, they were forced to flee their residence in the German city of Munich prior to the Second World War.

The complaint states that the institution, which purchased the artwork in the 1950s for one hundred twenty-five thousand dollars, ought to have been aware it was almost certainly looted property. The heirs are now requesting the repatriation of the canvas along with compensation.

In the decades since WWII, this Nazi-looted painting has been frequently and covertly traded, bought and sold in and through the city of New York, states the legal filing.

Family's Flight

Hedwig and Frederick Stern escaped from Munich to California in 1936 with their offspring due to Nazi persecution. However, they were barred from transporting the Van Gogh piece, which was created by the renowned Dutch in 1889.

Before they left, Nazi authorities designated the painting as a German cultural asset and banned the family from exporting it. Following authorization from a Nazi official, a agent assigned by the Nazis sold the piece on the family's behalf. But, the funds from the sale were held in a restricted account, which the regime later seized.

Later Transactions

Around 1948, or not long after, the painting entered New York and was purchased by a wealthy American, one of America's wealthiest people. Eventually, it was exchanged through a gallery to the museum, which then sold it to prominent shipowner the magnate and his spouse, Mrs. Goulandris, in 1972.

The Goulandris pair established the Goulandris Foundation in 1979, which runs a museum in Athens where the masterpiece is currently on display.

Claims and Defenses

The foundation and a living relative of Goulandris are listed as respondents. The legal action claims that the family and its related entities have hidden and obscured the painting's ownership and location from the heirs.

To this day, the foundation continue to hide the manner and time the BEG came into possession of the artwork; the couple's ownership of the Painting from the mid-1930s; and the truth that the Nazis stole the artwork from the family, pressured the couple into parting with it via a regime representative, and took the funds of the sale.

Earlier Lawsuits

The family filed a comparable case in CA in 2022, but it was rejected in the following years. An appeal was also dismissed in May 2025.

Museum's Response

The complaint contends that the institution's buying of the artwork was approved by a curator, the Met's authority of European art and a leading authority on art theft during the Nazi era. Rousseau and the Met must have known that the Painting had likely been looted by the regime.

The museum responded that it prioritizes its historical dedication to address issues related to WWII.

A representative stated: Not once during the museum's possession of the artwork was there any documentation that it had earlier been possessed to the heirs – actually, that information did not become available until many years after the masterpiece left the institution's holdings.

The Met's sale of the Van Gogh met the Met's guidelines for removal from collection – namely, it was recorded that the piece was deemed to be of inferior standard than additional artworks of the same type in the inventory. While the institution maintains its position that this artwork entered the collection and was removed lawfully and well within all standards and procedures, the Met invites and will examine any new information that comes to light.

BEG's Response

A lawyer on behalf of BEG said: The Goulandris Foundation is a esteemed foundation in Athens. The action to take legal action against the organization and the family in the America upon deceptive and insufficient accusations was earlier rejected, twice. We are confident it will be again.