🔗 Share this article

The heirs of a Jewish pair have initiated legal proceedings against The Met, alleging that a the Dutch artist art piece was looted by the Third Reich.

Case History

As stated in the legal filing, Hedwig and Frederick Stern purchased the painting, titled Olive Picking, in the year 1935. A year after, they were forced to flee their residence in Munich, Germany just before the Second World War.

The complaint argues that the institution, which obtained the masterpiece in 1956 for a significant sum, must have realized it was almost certainly confiscated property. The descendants are now requesting the repatriation of the artwork along with financial restitution.

Following WWII, this plundered piece has been often and discreetly exchanged, acquired and disposed of in and through New York, states the legal filing.

The Sterns' Escape

The Sterns departed from the city of Munich to California in 1936 with their large family due to persecution by the Nazis. Yet, they were prevented from taking the painting, which was painted by the Dutch post-impressionist in 1889.

Before the family's emigration, the Nazi government designated the painting as property of the state and banned the couple from exporting it. After obtaining permission from a Nazi official, a trustee assigned by the Nazis sold the painting on the family's behalf. Yet, the money from the transaction were deposited in a frozen account, which the regime later confiscated.

Subsequent Ownership

By 1948, or soon after, the painting arrived in the United States and was bought by a prominent figure, one of America's wealthiest people. Subsequently, it was transferred through a commercial outlet to the institution, which then passed it on to Greek shipping magnate Goulandris and his partner, Elise Goulandris, in 1972.

The Goulandris pair established the BEG in 1979, which runs a museum in Athens where the masterpiece is currently shown.

Legal Arguments

The institution and a surviving nephew of Goulandris are listed as respondents. The lawsuit claims that the Goulandris family and its related entities have concealed and disguised the painting's ownership and location from the family.

Currently, the defendants continue to hide how and when the BEG came into control of the Painting; the family's possession of the masterpiece from 1935 to 1938; and the reality that the Nazis confiscated the artwork from the Stern family, pressured the family into parting with it via a trustee, and took the funds of the transaction.

Previous Legal Action

The family filed a similar complaint in the state of California in 2022, but it was thrown out in the following years. An legal challenge was also rejected in recently.

Museum's Response

The lawsuit states that the Met's purchase of the painting was sanctioned by the museum's expert, the institution's specialist of Old Masters and a leading authority on Nazi-era looted art. The institution and its expert must have known that the Painting had almost certainly been seized by the regime.

The museum responded that it takes seriously its historical dedication to resolve Nazi-era claims.

A representative remarked: Not once during the institution's custody of the piece was there any record that it had earlier been possessed to the Stern family – in fact, that knowledge did not become available until many years after the painting left the Museum's collection.

The Met's sale of the artwork met the institution's rigorous standards for disposal – in particular, it was documented that the artwork was deemed to be of lesser quality than other pieces of the comparable nature in the collection. Although The Met maintains its view that this work entered the collection and was sold properly and well within all guidelines and policies, the museum invites and will examine any further evidence that is discovered.

BEG's Response

William Charron acting for BEG said: The Goulandris Foundation is a highly prestigious organization in Greece. The action to litigate and defame the organization and the family in the America upon deceptive and insufficient accusations was previously dismissed, on two occasions. We are confident it will be once more.