Metropolitan Museum Faces Legal Challenge Over Reportedly Nazi-Stolen Van Gogh Artwork

The heirs of a Jewish spouses have initiated legal proceedings against The Metropolitan Museum of Art, asserting that a the Dutch artist canvas was seized by the Third Reich.

Historical Background

As stated in the legal filing, the Stern couple purchased the painting, titled Olive Harvest, in 1935. The following year, they were obliged to escape their residence in the German city of Munich prior to the Second World War.

The complaint contends that the Met, which obtained the painting in the 1950s for $125,000, should have known it was probably looted property. The family are now seeking the return of the canvas along with compensation.

Following WWII, this Nazi-looted painting has been repeatedly and secretly trafficked, bought and sold in and through the city of New York, states the court document.

Forced Emigration

The Stern family departed from their Munich home to America in 1936 with their offspring due to the oppressive Nazi regime. Yet, they were unable to bring the painting, which was painted by the celebrated artist in 1889.

Before they left, the Nazi government classified the artwork as a German cultural asset and banned the family from exporting it. After obtaining permission from a Nazi official, a trustee appointed by the authorities disposed of the artwork on the Sterns' behalf. Yet, the funds from the auction were deposited in a frozen account, which the authorities later seized.

Subsequent Ownership

In 1948, or shortly after, the artwork arrived in the United States and was acquired by Vincent Astor, among the richest individuals in the US. Later, it was transferred through a commercial outlet to the Met, which then passed it on to prominent shipowner Goulandris and his partner, Elise Goulandris, in 1972.

Basil and Elise established the Basil & Elise Goulandris Foundation in 1979, which manages a gallery in Athens where the painting is currently on display.

Court Allegations

The foundation and a surviving nephew of Goulandris are listed as respondents. The legal action claims that the defendants and its related entities have hidden and obscured the artwork's provenance and current place from the plaintiffs.

To this day, the foundation continue to hide the manner and time the foundation came into control of the Painting; the Stern family's ownership of the Painting from the mid-1930s; and the reality that the regime looted the artwork from the Stern family, pressured the family into selling it via a Nazi-appointed agent, and seized the funds of the transaction.

Prior Cases

The family initiated a related lawsuit in CA in 2022, but it was rejected in the following years. An appeal was also dismissed in spring 2025.

The Met's Position

The legal action contends that the Met's purchase of the painting was authorized by the museum's expert, the institution's specialist of Old Masters and one of the world's foremost experts on Nazi-era looted art. Rousseau and the Met knew or should have known that the masterpiece had almost certainly been stolen by the regime.

The museum issued a statement that it prioritizes its longstanding commitment to handle issues related to WWII.

A representative commented: Not once during The Met's ownership of the painting was there any record that it had earlier been possessed to the Stern family – in fact, that information did not become known until several decades after the artwork left the Museum's collection.

The museum's disposal of the Van Gogh met the Met's guidelines for disposal – namely, it was documented that the work was considered to be of lower caliber than additional artworks of the similar kind in the collection. While The Met upholds its view that this work entered the inventory and was sold legally and well within all standards and procedures, the museum invites and will examine any additional details that is discovered.

Goulandris Statement

A lawyer acting for BEG said: BEG is a highly prestigious organization in Greece. The attempt to take legal action against the organization and the defendants in the US upon inaccurate and partial claims was previously dismissed, on two occasions. We are convinced it will be a third time.