🔗 Share this article

The descendants of a Jewish couple have filed a lawsuit against The Metropolitan Museum of Art, asserting that a the Dutch artist art piece was seized by the Nazis.

Case History

Per the lawsuit, the Stern couple bought the piece, titled Olive Picking, in 1935. Just one year later, they were compelled to leave their home in Munich prior to World War II.

The legal action states that the institution, which acquired the painting in the mid-1950s for a significant sum, must have realized it was almost certainly looted property. The family are now seeking the restitution of the canvas along with compensation.

Following the war, this Nazi-looted painting has been often and discreetly exchanged, acquired and disposed of in and through the city of New York, alleges the legal filing.

Family's Flight

The Sterns escaped from the city of Munich to California in 1936 with their offspring due to Nazi persecution. Nevertheless, they were barred from transporting the painting, which was painted by the renowned Dutch in the late 19th century.

Prior to their departure, Nazi authorities designated the artwork as a German cultural asset and prohibited the family from bringing it with them. Once approved from a Third Reich agent, a agent designated by the Nazis disposed of the piece on the Sterns' behalf. However, the funds from the transaction were held in a blocked account, which the regime later took.

Later Transactions

By 1948, or shortly after, the canvas was brought to the United States and was purchased by a wealthy American, a member of the Astor family. Eventually, it was sold through a commercial outlet to the institution, which then sold it to Greek shipping magnate Basil Goulandris and his spouse, Elise, in the early 1970s.

The Goulandris pair founded the BEG in 1979, which manages a museum in Athens, Greece where the artwork is currently on display.

Legal Arguments

The foundation and a family member of Goulandris are named as defendants. The legal action states that the family and its associated organizations have hidden and obscured the masterpiece's history and current place from the heirs.

Even now, the Goulandris Defendants continue to conceal the circumstances the foundation came into ownership of the artwork; the couple's ownership of the Painting from several years; and the facts that the Third Reich confiscated the canvas from the heirs, pressured the family into parting with it via a Nazi-appointed agent, and confiscated the proceeds of the transaction.

Earlier Lawsuits

The Stern heirs initiated a comparable case in CA in 2022, but it was dismissed in the following years. An legal challenge was also dismissed in recently.

Museum's Response

The lawsuit argues that the institution's buying of the piece was authorized by Theodore Rousseau Jr, the museum's curator of Old Masters and a leading authority on art theft during the Nazi era. Rousseau and the Met were aware or ought to have been aware that the masterpiece had likely been seized by the Nazis.

The museum issued a statement that it takes seriously its longstanding commitment to handle claims from the Nazi period.

A representative remarked: At no time during the institution's custody of the painting was there any documentation that it had once belonged to the family – indeed, that knowledge did not become available until several decades after the artwork left the Met's possession.

The institution's deaccessioning of Olive Picking met the Met's guidelines for removal from collection – namely, it was recorded that the artwork was judged to be of lower caliber than other works of the same type in the inventory. While The Met upholds its stance that this artwork entered the holdings and was deaccessioned legally and well within all guidelines and policies, the museum welcomes and will consider any further evidence that comes to light.

BEG's Response

A lawyer representing the foundation commented: BEG is a esteemed foundation in the Greek capital. The action to litigate and defame the organization and the family in the America upon misleadingly incomplete allegations was earlier rejected, twice. We are confident it will be again.