🔗 Share this article

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

Origins of the Dispute

Per the court documents, Frederick and Hedwig Stern acquired the artwork, titled Olive Harvest, in the mid-1930s. The following year, they were compelled to leave their dwelling in Munich just before World War II.

The legal action argues that the institution, which acquired the masterpiece in 1956 for a significant sum, must have realized it was probably confiscated property. The family are now demanding the repatriation of the artwork along with financial restitution.

Following World War II, this Nazi-looted painting has been repeatedly and secretly trafficked, acquired and disposed of in and through NYC, states the court document.

Forced Emigration

The Sterns fled from Munich to America in 1936 with their large family due to Nazi persecution. However, they were barred from transporting the painting, which was created by the renowned Dutch in 1889.

Prior to their departure, the Nazi government designated the artwork as property of the state and banned the family from taking it abroad. After obtaining permission from a Nazi official, a agent designated by the Nazis sold the painting on the family's behalf. But, the proceeds from the transaction were placed in a blocked account, which the Nazis later took.

Later Transactions

Around 1948, or soon after, the painting was brought to New York and was purchased by a wealthy American, among the richest individuals in the US. Later, it was exchanged through a art dealer to the institution, which then passed it on to prominent shipowner Goulandris and his wife, Mrs. Goulandris, in the early 1970s.

The Goulandris pair established the Goulandris Foundation in 1979, which runs a institution in Athens where the masterpiece is currently exhibited.

Legal Arguments

The institution and a family member of the magnate are listed as respondents. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants and its related entities have hidden and obscured the painting's ownership and current place from the plaintiffs.

Even now, the Goulandris Defendants continue to obscure the manner and time the foundation came into control of the piece; the Stern family's ownership of the artwork from several years; and the truth that the regime confiscated the canvas from the heirs, coerced the Sterns into parting with it via a Nazi-appointed agent, and seized the funds of the sale.

Earlier Lawsuits

The family filed a comparable case in California in the year 2022, but it was dismissed in 2024. An further action was also denied in recently.

Museum's Response

The legal action contends that the museum's acquisition of the piece was authorized by the museum's expert, the Met's authority of Old Masters and one of the world's foremost experts on art theft during the Nazi era. The institution and its expert must have known that the masterpiece had probably been seized by Nazis.

The Met said in a statement that it is committed to its longstanding commitment to address Nazi-era claims.

An official remarked: Not once during The Met's ownership of the artwork was there any evidence that it had previously been owned to the Stern family – in fact, that data did not become available until several decades after the artwork left the Met's possession.

The institution's deaccessioning of the artwork met the museum's strict criteria for deaccessioning – in particular, it was noted that the artwork was judged to be of inferior standard than other pieces of the similar kind in the holdings. While the museum respectfully stands by its stance that this work entered the holdings and was removed legally and well within all rules and regulations, the Met is open to and will review any new information that emerges.

Foundation's Defense

William Charron on behalf of the Goulandris Foundation stated: The Goulandris Foundation is a esteemed foundation in Athens. The attempt to take legal action against the institution and the defendants in the America upon inaccurate and partial claims was previously dismissed, multiple times. We are confident it will be once more.